The Laffoy Commission on child abuse must not adjudicate on individual cases or allow any form of "name and shame", a legal representative of the Christian Brothers order has said.
A time lapse, particularly where an alleged perpetrator had died, meant that there could not be a finding in every case as it would be prejudicial and evidence would be untested, according to counsel for the congregation, Ms Mary Irvine.
The function of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse in institutions was to report to the Oireachtas on the wider picture of abuse since the 1940s, she told a public sitting of the Commission yesterday.
A legal representative of some complainants, Mr David McGrath, said complainants wanted to be in a position to tell their story and if no finding could be made where an alleged perpetrator was dead it would be a "wholly improper situation" for them to be in.
Ms Irvine, however, addressing the chairperson, Miss Justice Laffoy, said the Commission's role was to hear a huge amount of evidence through its two committees; the investigative committee and the confidential committee, which was for people who did not wish to have the abuse inquired into. Complainants can opt for either course, she noted.
The Commission was then asked to pool that information, give some general or specific finding, then inquire into why the abuse took place, make recommendations, and report to the Oireachtas to ensure it did not happen again.
"It's easy to get bogged down in complaints. That's the way you've chosen to get to the main findings but this Commission was not set up to adjudicate between complainants and respondents," Ms Irvine said.
The Commission had to be satisfied the abuse occurred. The complainant had not the right to ask for a forum and to "name and shame" the alleged perpetrator of the abuse, she said.
The Act setting up the Commission required the report be made to the Oireachtas if it was satisfied the abuse of children during a specific time occurred in a particular institution. It may then identify the institution or person who committed the abuse. The Act did not require the report should contain findings in relation to "particular instances" of alleged abuse.
However, Mr McGrath said: "I know if a complainant felt there would be no finding, I would advise that there is no point in going before the investigative committee as it would end up having the same function as the confidential committee."