Sir,—The article by Padraig Yeates in the last issue (HI 31.6, Nov./Dec. 2023, Platform) is a significant addition to the record of 9 and 10 August 1971. It also casts some light on the difficulties and pressures that witnesses may face in volunteering to give evidence in court. Unfortunately, however, there are some mistakes at the start of the article.
Firstly, the British and Irish governments were not signatories to the Stormont House Agreement (SHA) as such. That agreement represented the outcome of discussions between the main Northern Ireland political parties on a variety of issues, including legacy. But the Ulster Unionist Party, which participated in the discussions, did not agree to the part of the SHA relating to legacy. A draft bill was subsequently produced but was never agreed, even between the parties that had actually agreed to the legacy part of the SHA.
Secondly, the Independent Commission for Information Retrieval (ICIR) to which Padraig Yeates refers, though proposed in the SHA, has never operated. On 15 November 2015 the British and Irish governments signed an agreement for the establishment of the ICIR. But, of course, that is nugatory, given the failure of local politicians to agree to the full implementation of the legacy part of the SHA.
Nevertheless, Padraig Yeates refers to the ICIR as being the most successful section of the SHA, ‘[retrieving] the remains of most victims buried during the Troubles’. Unfortunately, he confuses the ICIR with the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains (ICLVR). That commission was duly established and has achieved considerable (though not yet total) success.
It would be a matter for discussion as to the extent to which that commission could be the template for any new bodies that would be directed to producing reliable information for victims’ families. But I would point out that at least part of the success in locating victims’ remains must be due to the promise, guaranteed in the legislation in both jurisdictions, of immunity for those who provide information as to the location of victims’ remains.
The question is whether there should be some degree of support for immunity provisions (along the lines of the immunity granted by the ICLVR). On the one hand, that could encourage perpetrators to provide information, which might be helpful to victims’ families. Or, on the other hand, is there such adamant opposition in principle to the grant of immunity, in any circumstances, that there should be opposition to any immunity provisions—even the immunity guaranteed to perpetrators by the ICLVR—to assist families to achieve retrieval of victims’ remains?—Yours etc.,
NEIL FARIS
Belfast
Neil Faris is perfectly correct. I conflated the ICLVR and ICIR. I was using them, rather clumsily, as I did the Stormont House Agreement, to point out the potential such initiatives had in addressing legacy issues through new processes aimed at reconciliation as well as achieving legal outcomes.
However, it is important to state the obvious differences between the conditional amnesties we propose in the Truth Recovery Process and the terms offered under the ICLVR. The latter provides for protected disclosures, not immunity from prosecution. If the State obtains evidence by other means prosecutions can take place. The Truth Recovery Process provides for conditional amnesties where:
(a) Victims and survivors avail of such an option rather than pursue cases through the courts.
(b) The system would be subject to judicial oversight but would operate through a mediation process.
(c) Victims and survivors would still be compensated by the State.
(d) Former combatants commit to engaging with victims and survivors—if the latter so wish.
(e) Former combatants’ testimony would be subject to verification.
(f) Former combatants could not incriminate others.
For more information see www.truthrecoveryprocess.ie—Padraig Yeates.