4 Promoting Reconciliation
Financial support for victims
55. We have already noted that the Consultative Group's
recommendation that £12,000 be paid to the families of all
those killed in the conflict provoked real outrage among some
victim and survivor groups and politicians. This was reflected
in much of the evidence that we received, and such depth of feeling
cannot and should not be ignored. However, there is a need to
look at the matter of financial support for victims in Northern
Ireland in a more measured manner. The recognition payment did
not derive solely from the minds of the Consultative Group without
any evidential support. It was proposed as a response to two desires
expressed to the Group by a number of those bereaved during the
Troubles, namely a desire for recognition and a desire for financial
recompense. In relation to financial recompense, the report comments:
Concerns about compensation, expressed during
the consultation, largely relate to the amounts paid in the 1970s
and 1980s to the families of people killed as a result of the
conflict. There was almost unanimous agreement that many payments
were inadequate, not least because compensation was primarily
based on loss of earnings and did not take into account the loss
felt by the family.[38]
56. Concern regarding the financial support available
to victims was echoed by the Commission for Victims and Survivors
in Northern Ireland, which acknowledged the strength of the public
reaction to this recommendation, but supported the proposal on
the basis of financial need. Patricia MacBride told the Committee:
[…] there is no doubt that there is a lack
of public consensus or support for that particular recommendation
at this time, In terms of how we as a Commission approached it,
we took a very pragmatic approach to the idea of a recognition
payment. We deal on a daily basis with people who have real and
genuine need […] We have a huge number of people who have
been under-compensated or not compensated but the money simply
does not exist to revisit the issue of compensation and to pay
people what they would have expected or what they felt was due
to them as a result of the loss or injury that they sustained,
so we took a corporate, very pragmatic approach that this £12,000
would address need in some of those instances. It is fair to say
that one of our colleagues took a position that he felt that because
the recognition payment was not targeted specifically at need
and because it had the potential to create division within families
who may not agree as to whether to take the money, or indeed whom
within the family should receive it, it was probably not a good
recommendation, but overall as I say the corporate view was that
we welcomed the payment.[39]
57. Several witnesses expressed similar views. For
example, the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council told
us:
Council does not have a fixed view on the appropriateness
of an acknowledgement but we acknowledge the spirit in which [the
Recognition Payment] was conceived and recognise that the many
different circumstances within the victims and survivors sector
create difficulties for some. At the same time, we are also aware
that this proposal would address real hardship issues for others.
Their needs must be addressed and enhanced individual support
should be considered through mechanisms such as the Memorial Fund.[40]
58. The Corrymeela Community also noted:
The Consultative Group's proposal on a recognition
payment to the nearest relative of someone who died as a result
of the conflict has been deeply controversial and will almost
certainly not proceed. However, there are significant hardship
issues among some victims and survivors which need to be considered.
Numerous individual victims and survivors are not catered for
by existing groups, community and voluntary organisations, and
statutory services, etc. In addition, victims and survivors have
a diverse range of needs and this required to be recognised.[41]
59. The Secretary of State acknowledged that this
recommendation had been made on the basis of evidence received
by the Consultative Group in the course of their consultation
and that such a payment would be welcomed, at least by some. For
this reason he invited views on this recommendation as part of
the consultation into the report of the Consultative Group launched
by the NIO on 24 June, despite having earlier played down consideration
of any payment in the proposed form.
[…] in reaching this recommendation (and
in subsequent discussions I have had with the Consultative Group),
I am very firmly of the view that this was not an idea promulgated
only by the group; nor, indeed was this an idea solely from one
section of the community in Northern Ireland. I believe, therefore,
it is important, as we live in a democracy, that, despite the
views that I have expressed about what I am minded to do, which
clearly reflects the Government's position, nonetheless, we allow,
however much of a minority voice it may be amongst some parts
of Northern Ireland, people to put forward their arguments for
and against this proposal. So I am entertaining, and I would have
to have, very strong cogently argued arguments for and against
this proposal; not because I have changed my position but because
I genuinely believe Eames and Bradley reflected proposals they
have heard. I think, in good faith they reflected them in their
Report, but perhaps they took them a little far into formulating
them into a permanent recommendation.[42]
60. It should be recognised that there is a need
for greater financial support to be made available for victims
in Northern Ireland. Compensation has not been adequate or consistent
in many cases. However, financial need must be disaggregated from
the separate desire for recognition. If it is not, any attempt
to address the needs of victims will be in danger of becoming
a matter of political and cross-community division, in the same
manner as the proposed recognition payment did. Lord Eames emphasised
that:
This was not about compensation. None of us have
the moral right to put a figure on any human life. It is about
humans and human suffering. At the root of this question is simply
this: who is a victim?[43]
61. The proposal was clouded by an attempt to combine
a response to financial need with the desire for victims to be
recognised in some way. Patricia MacBride, one of the four Commissioners
for Victims and Survivors, suggested that the Legacy Commission
could constitute a means of addressing the needs of victims and
survivors through adopting a broader role in improving services
for victims:
[…] what I am hopeful of is that the package
of measures that is delivered as a result of addressing societal
need will in some way ensure that people's needs are met. It may
not be through a recognition payment; if it is through improved
services that people require to help them deal with the past,
if it is through the delivery and investigation and it addressed
need that is far more important than whether the money comes to
them as a £12,000 cheque into an individual household or
whether it is streamed through a methodology for addressing their
needs.[44]
62. The Northern Ireland Community Relations Council
also suggested that support is needed by those other than the
bereaved who have been affected by the Troubles and noted that
the recognition payment "does not take those who have suffered
physical injury and mental trauma into account and this has caused
considerable upset and anger in some quarters."[45]
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has similarly noted
the absence of references to other kinds of human rights abuses
in the report of the Consultative Group:
[…] in the Report there is no reference
to violations of human rights short of killing; whilst great attention
is given in the document to the need for what might be termed
"macro" or "big picture" truth, the Report
does not address in any significant detail issues around injury,
sexual violence, including rape, torture, maltreatment, violations
of property rights, violations of rights of association, assembly
and expression, and so on […] [46]
63. We note that in August 2009 the Office of
the First Minister and Deputy First Minister published proposals
for consultation on the establishment of the Victims and Survivors
Service. This is to be welcomed and will improve support to both
Victims Groups and individuals affected by the Troubles. We hope
that the Northern Ireland Executive will implement this service
as soon as is practicable.
64. We believe that there is a need for greater
financial support and services to be made available for those
affected by the Troubles in Northern Ireland and share the view
that this should include those physically and psychologically
injured by these events.
65. We commend for consideration by the First
Minister and Deputy First Minister the establishment of a fund
to be operated on the basis of criteria which command cross-community
support.
Defining "victims"
66. The strength of the public reaction to the proposed
recognition payment reflects the reality that the way in which
victims and survivors are defined remains a matter of difficulty
for communities in Northern Ireland. In the course of their consultation,
the Consultative Group encountered a need for some kind of recognition
of suffering from families in all aspects of the conflict. In
relation to the proposed recognition payment, Lord Eames told
the Committee:
[…] time and time again during the consultation
period we were urged to produce something which would give recognition
to the trauma and suffering of those left behind. They range from
the families of security forces, including families of British
soldiers who served in Northern Ireland but then still lived on
the mainland, from families of the UDR and the RUC victims of
the Troubles to civilians caught up in the tragedy. There was
a widespread feeling that once the media spotlight and sympathy
from their local community passed away from a family after a funeral,
society forgot about them. Politicians, social workers and victim's
groups were among those who urged that some recognition of this
human reaction must be found in our Report. There were words like
'there is no difference between a mother's tears' […] This
was not about compensation. None of us have the moral right to
put a figure on any human life. It is about humans and human suffering.
At the root of this question is simply this: who is a victim?[47]
This question lies at the heart of much of this difficulty
surrounding the reconciliation of communities in Northern Ireland.
67. The legal definition of a "victim"
in Northern Ireland, as adopted by the Consultative Group, is
contained within in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland)
Order 2006, passed at Westminster before the resumption of devolved
government in May 2007. It classifies a "victim" as:
a) someone who is or has been physically or psychologically
injured as a result of or in consequence of a conflict-related
incident;
b) someone who provides a substantial amount
of care on a regular basis for an individual mentioned in paragraph
(a); or
c) someone who has been bereaved as a result
of or in consequence of a conflict-related incident. [48]
68. This definition was discussed in the Seventh
Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the House of Commons,
which debated the draft Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland)
Order on 1 November 2006. That Committee was attended by members
of the Northern Ireland political parties which sit at Westminster,
including members of our Committee. It must be noted that that
Committee had no power to amend the Order. There was cross-party
acknowledgement that the definition, while presenting a challenge
for the people of Northern Ireland, was the only way to avoid
a "hierarchy of victims". The draft Order was debated
in House of Lords Grand Committee on 25 October 2006. The motion
passed without division in both Houses. During the Commons debate,
the then Minister of State for Northern Ireland, David Hanson
MP, commented:
We define victims and survivors as people who
define themselves as victims and survivors. I do not wish to draw
an artificial distinction between a person who, for example, might
feel hurt because they were involved in an incident that resulted
in their family being killed by a bomb in a major city in Northern
Ireland and a relative of somebody who was killed in conflict
with the British Army or others.[49]
69. Mr Bradley told us that it was not within the
Consultative Group's mandate to challenge that definition:
That is the definition of this House. We are
not in a position, nor did we desire to go and seek the changing
of that definition. That definition came about, not out of the
blue; it came as a result of a number of reports. Sir Kenneth
Bloomfield had already done two reports, Bertha McDougall, who
was the interim Victims Commissioner, had also done a report,
and it was quite clear that within those reports this issue about
who a victim was could not be grasped.[50]
He acknowledged, however, that the issue of how victims
are defined remains a barrier to peace in Northern Ireland:
The truth of the matter is that in Northern Ireland
we are still fighting about who a victim is or who a victim is
not [...] [51]
The Commission for Victims and Survivors emphasised
to the Committee that they are statutorily required to work with
the current legal definition. They told us that they undertook
their work from the perspective of addressing the needs of everyone
who approached them:
We as a Commission as four individuals regardless
of our corporate togetherness on the issue of working to the statutory
definition, define a victim or survivor of the conflict based
upon the need that they present to us. We define a human face,
we define the needs that walk through our door, we define the
needs that are sought out to be addressed with our assistance.
You cannot simply categorise an individual because of the circumstances
of their loss, you have to have the capacity to consider the human
impact of the conflict on these individuals.[52]
70. Many of the submissions we received noted issues
surrounding the definition of "victim". The Northern
Ireland Community Relations Council, for example, believed the
current definition should be either reaffirmed or altered.[53]A
submission from FAIR , a victims' support group, contrastingly
described the definition as "erroneous".[54]
71. The existing legal definition of "victim"
focuses on those left behind rather than those who died. This
facilitates the work being done by bodies such as the Commission
for Victims and Survivors, who provide support to people affected
by the Troubles; it is the living who need such support, not the
deceased. However, the definition clearly does not reflect the
everyday understanding of a "victim" as expressed by
many of those who found the recommendation of the Consultative
Group so offensive, for whom the term "victim" clearly
reflects some sense of innocence. The submission from the RUC
GC Foundation highlighted this disparity:
A great sense of hurt was generated by the definition
of "victim and survivor" found in the Victims and Survivors
(Northern Ireland) Order 2006 — a definition which has been
followed by the CGP, The definition of a "victim" in
the Oxford English Dictionary reads "a person harmed, injured
or killed as a result of a crime or accident". This definition
is much preferred.[55]
72. The controversy surrounding the recommendation
on recognition payments once again demonstrates the continuing
relevance of language in dealing with the past in Northern Ireland.
The definition of a "victim" provided by the Victims
and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 is currently the accepted
legal definition of "victim", and should remain so until
such time as an alternative gains cross-party support within the
Assembly. However, it is clear that further public debate is needed
in order to build a clear consensus on this issue. It will ultimately
be for the Northern Ireland Assembly to establish an accepted
understanding of who constitutes a "victim".
Reconciliation Forum
73. The Consultative Group recommended that a Reconciliation
Forum be established, through which the Legacy Commission would
work with the Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern
Ireland (CVSNI) to address various social issues arising from
the conflict. This would include working to address sectarianism;
promoting remembering activities; working with young people; providing
improved services for healthcare needs; ensuring an even spread
of economic benefits; and helping those exiled from Northern Ireland
during the conflict to return. The Forum's function in relation
to these activities would be to:
- analyse the activity undertaken
to address these issues;
- consider the need for further
activity including the need to address any gaps, and, drawing
on the expertise within the membership of the Forum, to assess
what would make the most impact;
- give advice on policy to Government
and other policy makers;
- advise on strategies to enable
the focused targeting of needs and the promotion of best practice,
drawing on local, national and international experience;
- advise on the development and
delivery of services; and
- decide on priority areas of
activity and assist in influencing others to take those priority
areas into account in the development of their policies and allocation
of their resources. The members of the Forum should also work
to ensure that their respective organisations take account of
these priority areas.[56]
74. The Consultative Group recommended that the Commission
for Victims and Survivors should take responsibility for convening
this Forum and that the Chairman of the Legacy Commission and
the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council should be key
members. It suggested that other bodies and groups could be invited
to specific meetings, depending on the issues being discussed.
We asked the Commissioners for Victims and Survivors whether they
would be content with this role. They replied:
We are happy with the concept. I have to say
we are a wee bit uncomfortable with the use of the word "forum"
and concerned that that might be somewhat misleading by creating
an expectation of large numbers of people engaged in this. We
know from discussion with the Consultative Group that they envisaged
the key agencies who have responsibility for societal matters
— principally ourselves, the Community Relations Council
and any new body created out of the Eames-Bradley Report —
that this would be a tripartite mechanism that the Commission
for Victims would convene to address these matters.[57]
75. Particular strategic concerns in relation to
the provision of services to victims and survivors clearly need
to be addressed. The Consultative Group's report noted:
In some localities a number of victim and survivor
groups showed how they had worked in some collaboration with one
another. But in other cases several different groups had been
delivering similar services in the same locality and were competing
for limited resources. Too often the knowledge and experience
of the best ways of meeting the needs of victims and survivors
were not shared among groups and the opportunity to share valuable
experience was lost. The reasons for this were complex but a major
factor was the lack of interaction between groups representing
different communities and, in some cases, the came community.[58]
76. The Consultative Group further noted that some
victim and survivors groups had a tendency to become agents with
specific political ends and "claim to represent more than
they actually do".[59]
This inevitably leads to the exclusion of those who feel that
such groups do not represent their own views.
77. Evidence to this Committee reflected the view
that strategic provision of services could be improved, particularly
with regard to provision of mental health services for those affected
by the Troubles. Mr Raymond White from the Northern Ireland Retired
Police Officers Association observed:
We were very fortunate in respect of the Patten
Agreement; it recognised the heavy psychological impact that the
four decades of the Troubles had on our membership and as a consequence
of that the PRRT was established at Maryfield. They have ten psychologists
in employment, seven of which as it were are looking after the
interests of serving and retired police officers. Some 250 new
cases are still presenting themselves on an annual basis to those
people, so you can estimate for yourself the number of ongoing
new cases — that is not people who have been treated and
put back into care of the National Health Service, this is 250
new presentations each year in respect of their services.[60]
78. We visited the PRRT facility at Maryfield, on
the outskirts of Belafst, during the course of this inquiry and
saw the range of services it offers to serving and former police
officers, and to their families, including children who have suffered
trauma as a result of the work done by their fathers and mothers
in policing Northern Ireland. These officers and families have
sometimes had to deal with varieties of trauma and levels of danger
more akin to military than civilian service. We pay enthusiastic
tribute to the work done at the centre in enabling serving officers
and their families to deal with the conditions they face and in
helping retiring officers to make the transition towards new interests
in employment or in education, after their years of service.
79. The Consultative Group identified issues surrounding
the provision of healthcare and sufficient services addressing
trauma. The report noted that "[t]he provision of mental
health services needs to take fuller account of the mental health
legacy of the conflict and reflect this in both the provision
of services and ongoing operational priorities".[61]
Lord Eames hoped the Legacy Commission would help resolve some
of these issues:
There are some tensions still existing between
the voluntary independent sector and the statutory sector around
[the treatment of psychological trauma relating to the Troubles].
That has not resolved itself and part of what we put in to the
Legacy Commission was a task that would actually coordinate some
of that.[62]
80. The Commissioners for Victims and Survivors similarly
believed that the existing inconsistency of approach to mental
health services and treatments was an example of the need to encourage
more strategic provision and coordination:
[…] within the health field it is a concern
that there is a lack of consensus in Northern Ireland about a
concept of conflict related-trauma. There is a lack of agreement
among theorists, academics and practitioners about the best models
for treatment — indeed whether the medical concept of treatment
is appropriate — and there is no clear agreed strategy for
the whole of our society. Within health trauma is an example of
a profound issue which needs urgent work done and strategic thinking
applied to it, we would like to think that in the kind of mechanism
envisaged by the Consultative Group there would be a place where
three important perspectives could meet, each of them having a
view on health needs based on their work.[63]
81. There is a need to ensure that physical and
psychological services and support are available to all who need
them. The need for adequate healthcare services is of particular
concern. However, we are not persuaded that the Reconciliation
Forum as proposed will necessarily add value to existing bodies
such as the Commission for Victims and Survivors. The aims of
the Consultative Group might be more effectively and efficiently
delivered if such bodies empowered to take on a wider strategic
role in coordinating and developing existing services for victims
and survivors.
FUNDING SERVICES FOR VICTIMS AND
SURVIVORS
82. The Consultative Group recommended that a £100
million bursary be made available to the Reconciliation Forum
in order to support its activities. The report commented:
Many strong views were expressed about the inadequacy
of funding that is generally available to meet the needs of, and
provide services for, victims and survivors. The chief criticism
was the lack of strategic focus evident in the piecemeal and short-term
approach to funding. Many groups argued that this impacted on
their ability to secure and retain good staff in the longer term
and ignored the fact that often the needs of victims and survivors
do not emerge for a long time after a traumatic event.[64]
83. The need to ensure continued funding for services
to victims and survivors was reflected in the evidence we received.
Again, funding for healthcare provision was a particular concern
identified by various witnesses. Submissions from the Northern
Area Trauma Advisory Panel and TMR Healthcare Professions noted:
The Report recognises the value of the work already
undertaken by the myriad of non-statutory groups and many of the
statutory organisations but this has, overall, been a very "piecemeal"
approach. The approach was revenue dependent and the DHSSPS and
local government agencies never fully addressed the level of commitment
to long term funding policies that would embed the range of trauma
services into core health and social care provision.[65]
84. The Corrymeela Community also emphasised the
importance of the work being undertaken by these organisations:
It is important that the Trauma Advisory Programme
is maintained. This programme has brought much good support to
victims on the group, specific to their needs and has gained much
learning from its work. Many of its programmes are systemic, address
the relationships of the family and some reconciliation components.
Many of the victims who would not have found support through the
"normal" (perceived as medical) system have found much
to aid them in their recovery. All such holistic programmes must
be encouraged.[66]
85. Existing healthcare services for those bereaved
and injured during the Troubles are under pressure, particularly
mental health services. We encourage the Northern Ireland Executive
to give these matters serious consideration. We recognise that
£100 million is a very large sum, and it might be put to
more productive use in finding a scheme to help those injured
or bereaved, as proposed in paragraph 65 of this Report.
REMEMBERING ACTIVITIES
86. The Consultative Group discussed at length the
importance of activities aimed at promoting reconciliation through
remembering. The report commented:
Whether and how the past should be publicly remembered
featured heavily in the consultation. Many groups and individuals
shared their view that public remembrance is a crucial element
of healing a post-conflict era. It allows them to reflect openly
on the past and come to terms with its impact upon their life.
It is an important way of celebrating and honouring the lives
of those who were lost in the conflict. It provides a way of rebuilding,
pointing to the shortcomings of the past, and shaping resolve
for a different future.[67]
87. The Consultative Group envisaged a role for the
Chairman of the Legacy Commission, through the Reconciliation
Forum, to promote storytelling schemes and memorial projects and
to develop the concept of a day of shared reflection, presently
existing as the Day of Private Reconciliation organised by Healing
Through Remembering on 21 June. The Group concluded that at present
a physical or living shared memorial would not be appropriate,
as such a project "remains a contentious issue for many and
poses many challenging issues around which we could not see any
consensus".[68]
However, they believed that storytelling activities were important
as a means for individuals to come to terms with the conflict
and promote wider social reconciliation:
[…] storytelling is a means of confronting
their past and articulating their stories, involving elements
of both narrative and moral reassessment. Through storytelling,
people realise that, although they feel their cause was just,
not all that they did in pursuit of it was either the right thing
to do, or altogether necessary.[69]
88. The Consultative Group recommended that whoever
chairs the Legacy Commission should encourage the collation of
stories in some form of archive and "seek to influence the
criteria for receiving funding in order to ensure that storytelling
initiatives have reconciliation at their heart."[70]
89. The Day of Private Reflection was launched on
21 June 2007 by Healing Through Remembering as an opportunity
for remembrance and private consideration of the consequences
of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
90. The Consultative Group supported this idea and
praised Healing Through Remembering for its work in implementing
the day. It recommended that this concept be developed and taken
further over time, remaining as a private day initially, but evolving
to include more public events, when appropriate. This, it said,
would include a keynote speech by the First Minister and deputy
First Minister reflecting upon the past "in a positive way
and to confirm their commitment to lead us towards a shared and
reconciled future".[71]
The day would also be renamed "a Day of Reflection and Reconciliation".
91. The evidence that we received in relation to
the recommendations of the Consultative Group was largely supportive
of moves to promote these kinds of remembering activities and
the Day of Reflection, in particular.[72]
However, there was concern that Northern Ireland was not entirely
ready for all of the Group's proposals in this regard. The Corrymeela
Community commented:
Rituals of remembering are important if society
is to establish a sense of the common ownership of the past and
to offer an opportunity for people to participate in an event
that collectively remembers and reflects. A movement from a Private
Day of Reflection to an Annual Day of Reflection is to be encouraged
but a Day of Reflection and Reconciliation may be a step too far
at this time. The involvement of Northern Ireland politicians
in key note addresses etc could be important as long as it is
not about telling politicians what to do.[73]
92. It was also emphasised to us that it is important
to allow individuals to chose when and how to participate in remembrance
activity.[74] This concern
was acknowledged by Lord Eames:
[…] one family's remembrance is a very individual
act on their part, what they want to remember, how they want to
remember it, and I would always want to protect the right of a
family to have their say in how they are left to remember a loved
one. That I think is vital. The trouble with our Report and the
trouble with our thinking which produced the Report is that to
magnify that onto a community site, a community level and a community
broad site, it is almost impossible to encompass all the various
attitudes to remembrance that there are in Northern Ireland society
at the moment.[75]
93. Storytelling activities and events, which
encourage both private and collective remembrance and reflection,
have already assisted in promoting reconciliation in Northern
Ireland. Any Legacy Commission established in the future may have
a role to play in terms of encouraging the development of such
initiatives, in liaison with other public bodies engaged in this
field. In the meantime, there should be continued support for
organisations such as Healing Through Remembering presently undertaking
such projects. We emphasise that consensus must be the basis for
taking forward initiatives such as the Day of Reflection. Not
everyone will feel able to participate in collective remembrance
and this should be understood. It is important that leading political,
church and other community representatives should be seen to show
the way towards reconciliation.
38 Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January
2009, p. 91 Back
39
Q 69 Back
40
Ev 48 Back
41
Ev 45 Back
42
Q 118 Back
43
Q 1 Back
44
Q 72 Back
45
Ev 48 Back
46
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Preliminary Position
Paper: Report of the Consultative Group on the Past July 2009,
para 26 Back
47
Q 1 Back
48
SI no. 2953 (N.I. 17) Back
49
HC Deb 1 November 2006, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee,
col 6 Back
50
Q 2 Back
51
Q 3 Back
52
Q 83 Back
53
Ev 48 Back
54
Ev 39, Back
55
Ev 76 Back
56
Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, pp
139 - 140 Back
57
Q 61 Back
58
Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, p.
85 Back
59
Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, p
87 Back
60
Q 103 Back
61
Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, p
88 Back
62
Q 46 Back
63
Q 66 Back
64
Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, p
86 Back
65
Ev 64 Back
66
Ev 45 Back
67
Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, p96 Back
68
Ibid, p 104 Back
69
Ibid, p 98 Back
70
Ibid, p 141 Back
71
Ibid, p 101 Back
72
Ev 76, 71 and 70 Back
73
Ev 45 Back
74
Ev 76 Back
75
Q 51 Back
|
