Sir, - Allow me to respond to your Editorial (November 2nd) on the changes to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Throughout the history of the European Convention of Human Rights only one signatory state, the British government, has been found guilty of violating Article 2, the right to life. That was over the killings in Gibraltar.
Michael Heseltine, the deputy prime minister, responded to this landmark verdict on behalf of the British government by stating that: "If we were faced with similar circumstances as those in Gibraltar, I have not the slightest doubt the same decisions would be taken again."
One would have thought the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which oversees the implementation of ECHR's rulings, would have censured the British government over its public avowal that it would ignore the ruling. Not so.
Our legal representatives wrote to the Council of Ministers urging them to take action against the British government over these contemptuous remarks. They also argued that in relation to the judgement there was a need for British domestic law to be changed on the use of lethal force by law enforcement officials as well as a need for changes to the training of these same officials. The court had established as fact that the soldiers who carried out the unlawful killings in Gibraltar were trained that if they shoot, they shoot to kill. And this crucially swayed the court to conclude that: "[the SAS soldiers'] reflex action in this vital respect lack the degree of caution in the use of firearms to be expected from law enforcement personnel in a democratic society . . ." (para 212 of Gibraltar Judgement).
The Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe ignored these representations and did not even acknowledge, never mind reply to, the letter from our lawyers. So, other than being forced to pay the families' legal costs, the British government faced no sanction from this human rights institution for violating the most sacred article of the convention, the right to life, by deliberately killing three unarmed people.
Almost a year after the Gibraltar verdict, Heseltine's assertion became a reality. Diarmuid O'Neill, an unarmed IRA man, was shot dead in very suspicious circumstances that were reminiscent of the Gibraltar killings. Could the ECHR and the Council of Ministers, through more affirmative action, not have saved this man's life?
Unfortunately, the changes to the ECHR, however welcome, are not going to alter this critical weakness: that powerful states such as Britain can simply ignore the court's rulings without fear of ostracism. - Yours, etc.,
Niall Farrell,
Secretary,
Relatives For Justice,
Co Galway.