Informal note on the press conference by Param Cumaraswamy, Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers

Geneva, 2 April 1998



In his introductory remarks Mr. Cumaraswamy said his report on Belgium was a preliminary report; judicial reforms were ongoing and a dialogue was still taking place with the judiciary and executive branch of Government. The mission, which took place in 1996, was prompted by the street demonstrations in October of that year on child prostitution, kidnapping and murder as well as the subsequent statement by the Prime Minister calling for constitutional reform of the judiciary. In his report the Special Rapporteur related findings on the disposal of the investigative magistrate, Mr. Jean-Marc Connerotte and also made comments on the judicial reforms taking place. Following meetings with ministers and others, he was pleased to see further changes were made to the reform proposals. Mr. Cumaraswamy said he would be following up reforms in Belgium which essentially dealt with the mechanisms for appointment, promotion and disposal of judges and the mechanism to supervise the judicial organ.

Responding to a question on the removal of Judge Connerotte, Mr. Cumaraswamy said the Court of Cassation was guided by very strict principles of judicial impartiality and as an examining magistrate, Judge Connerotte was subject to these standards of judicial impartiality. He had not found evidence of any ulterior motive behind the decision of the Court of Cassation which had upheld this principle. The facts were not disputed and no fault could be found as far as the decision of the Court was concerned. He felt the judicial organ in Belgium had been neglected by successive Governments, however, following this particular event more funds and attention were allocated.

Introducing his report on Northern Ireland, Mr. Cumaraswamy, said the mission was undertaken following reports from various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on intimidation and harassment of defence lawyers in Northern Ireland, in particular lawyers defending suspects in terrorist related crimes. There was also ongoing concern on the Patrick Finucane case, a solicitor murdered in 1989. The mission was further prompted by invitations from the Independent Commissioner for Holding Centre and from the Chairman of the Bar Council of Northern Ireland.. Whilst in London, the Special Rapporteur also discussed, among other issues of concern to lawyers, the question of bugging of law officers, the right to silence, problems faced during high security cases and the Diplock courts.

On the intimidation and harassment of defence lawyers, Mr. Cumaraswamy said the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) had taken the easy way out. As nothing had come to them directly and formally they felt the allegations in reports of international NGOs were unsubstantiated. Although this only affected approximately 2 per cent of defence lawyers in Northern Ireland, they were working on very important and sensitive cases. The lawyers said they were not getting any responses from the RUC to complaints sent and had no confidence in their own Law Society which was treating them as second class lawyers.

The Special Rapporteur said, looking at the material, one could find a common pattern in the initial complaints made, as though RUC officers were coached or trained to conduct their investigations in the same way. As a result, he had came to the conclusion that there was some truth in these allegations made against the RUC. Moreover, he felt, as did the Hayes Commission, that the public had lost confidence in the RUC investigative mechanism. The Hayes Commission had subsequently recommended the establishment of a Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

Asked whether he was suggesting that there was an official form of coaching within the RUC or that it was a collective initiative by a group of officers, Mr. Cumaraswamy said inferences could be drawn from the material available, that there was some form of coaching going on. There was no evidence, however, that this was taking place.

Referring to a statement by the British Government that they had some problems with certain parts of the report, Mr. Cumaraswamy said he would need clarifications on the statement. He was happy to have a dialogue with the British Government and provide them with any additional information.

On the Patrick Finucane case and the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation for a judicial inquiry, a correspondent noted the British Government had said there should be no inquiry unless new evidence came forth. Responding, Mr. Cumaraswamy said they may have misunderstood his recommendation. He accepted the fact there was insufficient evidence to prosecute and secure conviction for the murder. What he was addressing was whether there was security force collusion with those who carried out the murder.

With the arrest and conviction of Brian Nelson, who served as chief intelligence officer for the Ulster Defence Association, further information seriously called into question whether official collusion had taken place. Evidence questioned, in particular, whether the Security Forces and RUC knew Patrick Finucane was a target. If this was the case, it should be made clear why he was not given adequate protection. These outstanding issues ought to be addressed through a judicial inquiry, Mr. Cumaraswamy added.