BLACK FARCE IN STRASBOURG

The Strasbourg - based European Human Rights Commission has agreed to consider charges of torture, degrading punishment and political discrimination laid against the British government by the Republic of Ire. land.

No Irish worker, of course, should have any illusions on the role of the commission. This bureaucratic body is no more concerned with the rights of the working class than any other organ of capitalist rule.

In fact the case is clearly seen by the Eire government of Jack Lynch as a means of diplomatic pressure on the Tories.

The commission will not even begin its detailed examination ol the charges until dha- ...t:l next February. Meanwhile British imperialism will continue to reveal its hideous, brutal face daily to the Irish working class.

The two most serious of the orıginal seven Eire charges will, in fact, not be heard at Strasbourg. One was conveniently withdrawn under pressure from the Tory government at Westminster, the other declared inadmissible by the commission itself. The withdrawn charge was brought under Article Seven of the Convention of Human Rights which the commission is supposed to administer.

Article Seven forbids retrospective criminal legislation. Eire claimed that provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1972 were in breach of this.

(The Act legalized the arrest policy already being pursued by British troops, although they had previously had no strict legal authority for this under the Special Powers Act.)

The charge was withdrawn after assurances to the head of the Irish legal team, Attorney-General Colm Condon, from his British opposite number Sir Peter Rawlinson.

Condon and the "Green Tory' government of Lynch also heaved sighs of relief when their second charge was declared inadmissible by the commission.

This referred to the massacre of 13 people in Londonderry on 'Bloody Sunday' (January 30, 1972), the killing of Seamus Cusack and Desmond Beatty in Derry in July 1971 and of Fr Mullen in Belfast in August 1971.

The commission found there was no evidence these killings were 'an administrative bractice, or that there was oficial tolerance of them. The charge of 'unlawful killing' under Article Two of the convention was therefore disallowed.

Since Condon and Lynch had only included this charge in a bid to appease militant Catholic criticism of them in the north, they were not at all unhappy at this turn of events.

The five charges which the British government will, eventually, be called upon to answer are: 1 The Special Powers Act places Britain in breach of Article One of the convention.

Article One binds member states to 'secure to everyone within their jurisdiction' the rights and freedoms set out elsewhere in the convention. The Irish claim the Act breaches this both in letter and in spirit. 2 Interrogation methods used against interned and detained men by the British government in Ulster are a breach of Article Three of the convention, which forbids torture and degrading punishSome evidence is cited from the Tories' own Compton Report. Although discounting charges of brutality, on grounds that have been widely questioned, Compton admitted that internees were subject to severe ill-treatment. 3 The convention does lay down grounds on which countries can pull out of its own stated ban on internment without trial.

But Eire argues that Britain went further than required by the exigencies of the situation'-the phrase used on Article 15 of the convention.

(Article 15, Clause Two allows internment when there is 'a public emergency threatening the life of the nation'. The Lynch government argues that this is not the case in Ulster.) 4 Internment breaches Article Six of the convention, which guarantees the right of arrested persons to a fair trial and other safeguards. 5 The operation of internment and detention without trial in Ulster breaches Article 14 of the convention.

Article 14 bans discrimination on grounds of political opinion. Eire argues that internment is founded on precisely this principle.

It is quite plain from the class character of the commission, the vague wording of the charges and the cynical attitude of the Lynch government itself that Strasbourg is to be an extended black farce.

Meanwhile in Ulster itself— as more and more well-documented case histories show— the military, police and vigilante thuggery of imperialist rule goes on.

LUI mustalle weie is wus Fnr inctanra thare ic thic report, given to the Association for Legal Justice, ot alleged brutality last month against prisoners awaiting trial in Cage Six of the Long Kesh internment camp.

This report is on the savage attacks on prisoners 1n Cage Six, Long Kesh, by British troops and prison warders.

At 9 D.m. on Friday. September 22, 1972, a hot water boiler was brought to Hut 61. A lot of prisoners were queueing outside the door of this hut for hot water to make tea. Suddenly the doors of all the huts were slammed closed and locked by the prison warders.

About ten minutes later the doors opened and a soldier in full riot gear came in with a loud hailer and announced that everyone was to go out into the yard.

This was done. When we reached the door of the hut we were made to run a gauntlet of about 300 soldiers and wardens wielding batons and kicking wildly.

We were then made to kneel against the perimeter wire of the compound. Here everyone was savagely attacked and beaten.

This went on for approximately halt an hour, then we were made to run back into our huts through another gauntlet of British troops and wardens.

No one escaped injury, some men were bleeding badly from head and face wounds. There were a lot of men suffering from previous illnesses, but no one was exempt from these beatings.

About ten minutes later we LANVUL UNLA were offered hospital treatment but a lot of injured men refused because of fear of another beating. This was proved to be the case when some badly injured men were brought to the camp hospital. There they were refused treatment by the doctors and then beaten back to their huts.

We call on all representatives of the minority in Belfast to protest against these savage and brutal attacks on the prisoners of Cage Six.

We also call for an independent inquiry, into these attacks by local MPs and Association for Legal Justice and an independent medical examination by our family doctors or the International Red Cross.

INFORMANTS The AL]'s informants append a list of 55 named victims of the alleged attacks, whose injuries include severe bruising of the legs, arms, ribs and genitals; bad cuts to the head and arms requiring stitches; bites to legs and arms from wardens' dogs.

A 60-year-old man from Belfast, Bernard Morgan, is said to have received badly bruised ribs, plus injuries to his legs, back and head Ed Campbell (55), also from Belfast, reportedly received a head wound requiring ten suicnes, pius bad bruising or nua had hairina of his back, arms and legs.

Belfast's J. Wilson, although only 14 years old, is claimed to have suffered a badly swolrighties and bruising bot sid right leg and head and genitals.

From Armagh, Kevin Trainer is said to have received dog bites on both his legs and his arms. But it is claimed that he was refused treatment by a doctor.

Evidence of military brutality outside the internment camps is cited in a statement collected by the AL] on August 30 from the father of two young Belfast boys. Although his name and address are withheld by the association in case of further reprisals, the statement is witnessed by R. O'Boyle and is in the hands of AL) solicitor P. J. McCrory. (On the night of August 29, 1972, I was moving some furniture from my house to the house of an old age pensioner. I was in fact giving this furniture to him as I was installing a new suite. In the moving I was helped by my two sons, Eamonn and Kieran. The reception of the furniture was also being helped by some local lads.

Our house is facing the military post at St Genevieve's School, and while we were moving the furniture we had remarked that it would not A VALALA surprise us if we had a visit from the troops.

When the operation was complete we did in fact have a visit from them. We were all arrested, that is, the helpers at both houses.

We were arrested at ll o'clock and brought to the military post at St Genevieve's and then to Black's Road military post. We were all interrogated. We went through the usual formalities and were eventually released, but my son Eamonn (17) was kept behind.

Kieran told me that he saw Eamonn's shirt torn from his back and that he had been crying. While I was there waiting to be called for interrogation I saw a former Hong Top: Londonderry European Human F by paratroopers on Kong policeman (who was now apparently in the army as their prize 'hatchetman') intimidating the boys and striking them about the legs with his baton, at the same time issuing threats as to what he would do with them, such as 'Would you like to have your throat slit, and that he knew karate, and •Would you like to have your face changed?' The information about his Chinese background was conveyed to the boys by this particular star of the army himself in a boastful attitude. _He also asked them to sing "The Queen'.

At 3 a.m. August 30, when Kieran told me what had happened, | inquired about Eámonn from the military post at St Genevieve's. They in turn rang Black's Road post and they told them that he had been released. This was repeated.

I was most anxious after this and I again went back but without any success. I then went to Andersonstown, and they told me that he was fact at Castlereagh holding centre.

Eamonn was released at 9 p.m. on August 30, 1972. He had been ill-treated at the army post by the said 'hatchetman' Chinese policeman, now member of Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. He was verbally intimidated and struck on ankles with baton, pulled back by the hair of the head and made to drink cold coffee.

His shirt was pulled open and he was made to stand out in the cold 15-20 minutes. He reported his treatment in Castlereagh to a military policeman.

Aemonn had been interrogated at Castlereagh holding centre from 6 a.m. until he was released at 9 p.m. He was isolated all this time and there had been different Special Branch personnel questioning him, i.e. queries about his opinions on present situation in the town and his views with regard to the political situation.

SPECIAL BRANCH Since the publication of the Compton Report, the activities of the Special Branch of the Royal Ulster Constabulary referred to in this last statement, have come in for more and more attention.

A recent 'World in Action' programme (Granada TV, September 25) detailed at least eight cases of alleged severe brutality at the Special Branch interrogation centres at Girdrood and Hollywood.

Assaults ranging from reeated kickings in the legs to ne forcing of a metal chair g up a man's anus were said › have taken place. In each ase signed doctors' statelents were sents ringgres examina ere consistent with what the erson in question said had appened to them.

There were also accounts of re use of severe electric nock torture during interroations at these centres. But the programme was also iterspersed with pious platiides from Tory MP William leedes and Labour's Roy lattersley. Hattersley's partig shot was: 'I suspect what's aid in Strasbourg will result 1 a new definition of torture.' Maybe it will. But it will do › only to ensure that the proess goes on and the system f class rule which produces remains unchallenged. Those like the Northern LIC eland Civil Rights Associaon, which it taking a case Strasbourg next month, ho sow illusions in bodies ke the Human Rights Comission cannot challenge the 'stem of class rule.

The Lynch government's anoeuvres at Strasbourg emonstrate the sickening inkruptcy of these politics.