28 March 2012
ECHR finds against the UK government - Pat Finucane's rights under Article 2 violated
The European Court of Human Rights concludes that government:
"failed to provide a prompt and effective investigation into the allegations of collusion by security personnel"
PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The family of Patrick Finucane welcome the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights today in Strasbourg. This is the first judicial determination on the murder of Patrick Finucane that has taken place so far. The Court has had the benefit of all relevant material on this case since it was submitted in 1995, including the recent report prepared by Sir John Stevens, Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police and its ruling affirms once again the importance of this case and the international concern that persists in relation to it.
The claims by the family of Pat Finucane and many others worldwide that the RUC and British Army colluded in his murder have now been judged so serious that the UK Government violated Article 2 of the Convention in not responding to them adequately or at all. The European Court was persuaded that the actions of the British State "failed to provide a prompt and effective investigation into the allegations of collusion by security personnel."
The obvious conclusion that must be drawn from this is that the State could not and would not investigate itself in this matter because the accusations it faced were absolutely true. The British Government must now address the matter in a forthright manner that properly addresses the violations of Article 2 of the Convention and remedies those violations without further delay.
Speaking on behalf of the Finucane family, Michael Finucane, son of the murdered solicitor and also a practising lawyer, said:
"My family have never been afraid to put our case forward to be tested. Now, we have a judgment from the highest court in Europe that his right to life was violated. The UK have been found wanting because they did not properly protect his life nor investigate his death. It is easy to see why they didn't want to investigate this murder: they were the instigators and facilitators of it."
"The responsibility for this matter now rests squarely with the British Government and how they will meet their obligations under the European Convention. It remains to be seen whether they will take their convention obligations seriously now that, once again, they have been measured and found wanting. The only way that the British Government can hope to reclaim any part of its shattered reputation is by establishing a full, independent judicial public inquiry without any further delay.".
Press Release from: Amnesty International, British Irish rights watch, and the Committee on the Administration of Justice
Human rights groups welcome European ruling on Finucane case, 1 July 2003
Amnesty International, British Irish rights watch, and the Committee on the Administration of Justice today welcomed the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Patrick Finucane.
The European Court of Human Rights found that Patrick Finucane's right to life, which is protected under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, had been violated in a number of ways:
· the RUC, who were suspected of issuing threats against Patrick Finucane, were not sufficiently independent to conduct an effective investigation into the murder. The Court concluded that there were "serious doubts as to the thoroughness or effectiveness with which the possibility of collusion was pursued". The Court observed that, "As later events were to show however, there were indications that informers working for Special Branch or the security forces knew about, or assisted in, the attack on Patrick Finucane."
· the inquest, which had refused to accept evidence of threats made against Mr. Finucane, "failed to address serious and legitimate concerns of the family and the public and cannot be regarded as providing an effective investigation into the incident or a means of identifying or leading to the prosecution of those responsible"
· the Court criticised the DPP for failing to give reasons for the many decisions taken in relation to cases touching on the murder. The Court noted that where the police investigation is itself open to doubts about its independence, "it is of increased importance that the officer who decides whether or not to prosecute also gives an appearance of independence in his decision-making". They found, "Notwithstanding the suspicions of collusion however, no reasons were forthcoming at the time for the various decisions not to prosecute and no information was made available either to the applicant or the public which might provide re-assurance that the rule of law had been respected. This cannot be regarded as compatible with the requirements of Article 2..."
· while Stevens 1 and 2 apparently did not focus on the Finucane case, in any event the reports were never made public and the Finucane family were never informed of their findings, "the necessary elements of public scrutiny and accessibility of the family are therefore missing"
· the Stevens 3 investigation, coming some ten years after the murder, "cannot comply with the requirement that effective investigations be commenced promptly and conducted with due expedition. It is also not apparent to what extent, if any, the final report will be made public, though a summary overview has recently been published."
The European Court of Human Rights concluded:
"The Court finds that the proceedings for investigating the death of Patrick Finucane failed to provide a prompt and effective investigation into the allegations of collusion by security personnel. There has consequently been a failure to comply with the procedural obligation imposed by Article 2 of the Convention and there has been, in this respect, a violation of that provision."
The human rights groups call on the government to take immediate action to give effect to the judgment of the Court. The organisations also call on
Ø To publish the reports of Stevens 1, 2 and 3.
Ø To ensure that the DPP gives full reasons for the many controversial decisions that have been made in relation to the Finucane case, and
Ø Most important of all, to immediately establish an independent, international public inquiry with full judicial powers of discovery and subpoena. As the European Court itself notes, international standards suggest that "In cases where government involvement is suspected, an objective and impartial investigation may not be possible unless a special commission of inquiry is established..."
A spokesperson for the three groups said:
"This judgment confirms that there has been no effective investigation of the collusion in this murder. The Finucane family have been waiting fourteen years for justice. It is time the government stopped aiding and abetting those who have engaged in collusion and cover-ups, and allowed the full truth to be told about this case by establishing a public inquiry."
For further information, contact:
Judit Arenas, Amnesty International, 07778 472188
Martin O'Brien, CAJ, 028 9096 1122
Jane Winter, BIRW, 020 8772 9161
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: 10 Queen Street Place, London EC4R 1BE. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.