§ Mr. Frank Maguireasked the Attorney-General if he will institute proceedings for assault against the officers concerned, based on the evidence contained in the recent Amnesty report on interrogations at the Royal Ulster Constabulary Centre, Castlereagh.
§ The Attorney-GeneralWhere sufficient evidence exists to establish a case of alleged assault by an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Director of Public Prosecutions will normally direct prosecution of that officer.
The allegations referred to in the Question have been put forward to the Government on an anonymous basis and are not admissible evidence. By letter dated 20th May 1978, the Government invited Amnesty International to identify the cases of alleged maltreatment to the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland, and this invitation was repeated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his Written Answer dated 8th June 1978—[Vol. 951, c. 229–34]—suggesting that complainants who consent to being identified to the Director should be identified to him in confidence, Amnesty International, however, still declines to provide the Director of Public Prosecutions with names of persons who have made the statements alleging maltreatment, even with such persons' consent. In the absence of such evidence, it is not possible to institute proceedings against any person arising out of the contents of the report.
§ Mr. Frank Maguireasked the Attorney-General if he will publish in the Official Report his statement to the European Commission on Human Rights in January 1977 admitting that torture methods had been used in Northern Ireland and that they would not be used again.
62W
§ The Attorney-GeneralI made no statement to the European Commission of Human Rights or to the European Court of Human Rights in January 1977 or at any other time admitting that torture methods had been used in Northern Ireland.
As appears from paragraph 153 of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ireland against The United Kingdom, on 8th February 1977 I gave an undertaking to the court in the following terms:
The Government of the United Kingdom have considered the question of the use of the 'five techniques' with very great care and with particular regard to Article 3 of the Convention. They now give this unqualified undertaking, that the 'five techniques' will not in any circumstances be reintroduced as an aid to interrogation.The court took formal note of this undertaking.