PAT FINUCANE 13th ANNIVERSARY


1. Joint statement by human rights groups/NGOs
2. Joint statement by law societies
3. Truth Or Continuing Cover Up? - analysis by Peter Madden
4. Beyond Collusion - Report of Lawyers Committee on Human Rights


---------------------------------------------------------------

Today [Feruary 12, 2002] on the thirteenth anniversary of the
murder of Pat Finucane by the UDA, RUC Special Branch and the
Force Research Unit of the British Army, an unprecedented number
of human rights NGOs have released a statement calling for a
public inquiry into the murder.

The Law Society (England and Wales), the Law Society of Northern
Ireland and the Human Rights Committee of the Bar Council
(Northern Ireland) have also issued a joint statement.

An opinion piece from Peter Madden, partner in the law firm
Madden & Finucane, and widelty published today, is included
below.

Also today, the New York based Lawyers Committee on Human Rights
have released a extensive report on the case at a press
conference in Belfast.  The Preface, Executive Summary and
Recommendations are included below. The full report -- Beyond
Collusion: The UK Security Forces and the Murder of Pat Finucane
-- and other reports can be found at the website of the Pat
Finucane Centre at http://www.serve.com/pfc

---------------------------------------------------------------



>>>>>> Joint NGO statement on the anniversary of the murder of
       Patrick Finucane - No inquiry 13 years later



We, the undersigned international and domestic NGOs, deplore the
UK Government's failure to initiate a public judicial inquiry
into the full circumstances of the killing of human rights lawyer
Patrick Finucane 13 years ago. Patrick Finucane was shot dead on
12 February 1989 by Loyalist paramilitaries; since then, evidence
has emerged which strongly suggests that there was official
collusion by both the army and the police in his killing, and a
subsequent cover-up. The UK government has steadfastly resisted
repeated calls for a public judicial inquiry into all aspects of
his killing, including the allegations of collusion and cover-up.
Calls for an inquiry have come from the UN Special Rapporteur on
the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, international and
domestic NGOs, the Finucane family, the House of Representatives
of the US Congress, the Irish government, and over two thousand
national and international lawyers.

Despite the ongoing police investigation into Patrick Finucane's
killing -- which to date has not resulted in successful
prosecutions against any of those involved -- we continue to urge
the UK government to establish immediately such an inquiry
because we believe that it is the only mechanism which could
provide an effective and public investigation into the serious
allegations in this case.

William Stobie, a key witness in connection with the case, was
murdered in December 2001, and other key witnesses are in fear
for their lives. Vital evidence has already disappeared. We are
particularly concerned that the longer the government
deliberately delays, the greater the risk that the future public
inquiry will be hampered.



Amnesty International
British Irish Rights Watch
Committee on the Administration of Justice
Human Rights Watch
International Commission of Jurists
International Federation for Human Rights
Irish Council for Civil Liberties
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights
Liberty
Pat Finucane Centre
Relatives for Justice
Scottish Human Rights Centre



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


>>>>>> Joint Statement issued by the Law Society (England and Wales),
       the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Human Rights
       Committee of the Bar Council (Northern Ireland)



Today is the 13th anniversary of the murder of Belfast solicitor
Patrick Finucane. On this day, we renew our calls to the
Government of the United Kingdom to hold, without further delay,
an independent public judicial inquiry into the full
circumstances of his killing, including into the question of any
state collusion in his death.

Previous and on-going investigations into Patrick Finucane's
murder have failed to provide answers to the evidence which has
emerged over the last 13 years and which suggest official
involvement. We believe it is of the utmost importance that the
Government act now. William Stobie, a key witness, was murdered
in December 2001 and vital evidence has already disappeared.

We wish to remind the Government that it has obligations in
national and international law to investigate this case
thoroughly and impartially, including under the United Nations
Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of
Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (1989), Article 11
of which states;

"In cases in which the established investigative procedures are
inadequate because of lack of expertise or impartiality, because
of the importance of the matter or because of the apparent
existence of a pattern of abuse, and in cases where there are
complaints from the family of the victim about these inadequacies
or other substantial reasons, Governments shall pursue
investigations through an independent commission of inquiry or
similar procedure. Members of such a commission shall be chosen
for their recognized impartiality, competence and independence as
individuals. In particular, they shall be independent of any
institution, agency or person that may be the subject of the
inquiry. The commission shall have the authority to obtain all
information necessary to the inquiry and shall conduct the
inquiry as provided for under these Principles."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


>>>>>> Truth Or Continuing Cover Up? - A Full Public Judicial
        Inquiry Now



By Peter Madden, Madden & Finucane Solicitors, Co-founder and law
partner of the late Pat Finucane



The Finucane family's long campaign to find the hidden truth
behind the UDA murder of Pat Finucane, seems set to continue,
despite the Weston Park proposal of the appointment of an
international judge to "thoroughly investigate" six cases,
including Pat's case.

Make no mistake about it. This is not the public judicial inquiry
that the family has been campaigning for. It is not the public
inquiry that the family are entitled to. This is a private,
behind closed doors, judicial investigation similar to the
Dublin/Monaghan investigation and probably does not meet the
requirements of European Convention on Human Rights. The Human
Rights Commissioner, Brice Dickson has recently said so.

The six cases:- the killings of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson,
Robert Hamill, Billy Wright, Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen, and
Lord Justice Maurice Gibson and his wife Cecily, - have been
highlighted by the two governments as representing nationalist
and unionist concerns about state involvement in murder.

Nationalist and Unionist leaders have also highlighted these
cases. They are cases of "urgent public importance". What could
be more important than allegations of a state's involvement in
the murder of its own citizens?

In British law, if a matter is of "urgent public importance" and
has been passed by both houses of parliament then a public
inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1921 must be
established. Such an inquiry will have all the powers of the High
Court to call for relevant material and subpoena relevant
witnesses who can be questioned in public.

If the two governments and the local political leaders have
highlighted these cases then why not establish public inquiries
in these cases immediately? Why go to the time and expense of
appointing a judge to hold six private investigations,
particularly if it is likely that full public inquiries will be
set up afterwards? It doesn't make any sense.

Unless, of course, the real reason for the appointment is delay
or, more concerning to the Finucane family, if the real reason is
to prevent the establish a full public judicial inquiry by the
establishment of something less in the guise of something more.

The Finucane family want the truth. They don't want a report from
a judge who examines the facts in secret and then publishes a
report which purports to be the truth.

The facts should be examined in public where the family can
challenge any purported explanation or denial. They are entitled
to have an input into the calling of relevant evidence and the
questioning of relevant witnesses.

They will be able to do none of this if the Weston Park proposals
are implemented.

It will take a very long time for any judge to "thoroughly
investigate" six complex cases.

That is why the Finucane family see this effort as a cynical
exercise in delaying or attempting to prevent the inevitable.

They took the same view when John Stevens was appointed, for the
third time, to re investigate Pat's murder. The family decided to
treat the Stevens police investigation as a delaying tactic and
the public can decide if the family took the correct approach.

The third Stevens investigation or Stevens 3, as it is known,
resulted in a delay of three years. A trial resulted in which
Billy Stobie was acquitted. He was subsequently murdered. The
Stevens report, whether published or not will instil no
confidence that Pat's case was thoroughly investigated no more
than the establishment of a judge to privately investigate the
same thing in which the family have no meaningful input.

The Finucane family were not informed that Pat's case was going
to be used by the two governments as a "bargaining chip" in the
peace process.

The case has been the subject of a high profile campaign for
thirteen years.

What is emerging and what is now in the public domain is a
picture of the British government's involvement in the murder of
its own citizens. The British military unit which directed Brian
Nelson who directed the UDA, was apparently involved in hundreds
of murders of nationalists and republicans, including that of Pat
Finucane. That is the allegation. That allegation has been
published time and time again by many investigative journalists.
Pat Finucane was subjected to death threats from RUC officers in
Castlereagh Interrogation Centre prior to his murder. These
threats were documented prior to his murder. Douglas Hogg, the
British Home Office Minister made a statement in the House of
Commons that some solicitors were sympathetic to the IRA, three
weeks before the murder. Pat was murdered with a British Army
browning pistol. Brian Nelson, the British army agent , who
directed the murder, was directed by the secret British Army
unit, the Force Research Unit (FRU). Billy Stobie, who was an RUC
agent provided the weapons for the murder.

In 1999 on the 10th anniversary of Pat's murder, British Irish
Rights Watch compiled a report which included copies of British
military documentation. The documents contained information which
led to the clear conclusion that the military unit ( the FRU )
were involved in conspiracy to murder.

The Report was handed to the British Government with a request to
authenticate the documents. So far they have not refuted the
allegation that the documents are genuine.

The disturbing thing is that they have not denied that such a
conspiracy existed.

The European Court rulings last May ( Jordan, McKerr, Shanaghan,
and Kelly v UK ) severely criticised the British Government for
their failure to provide a proper investigative process for
hundreds of cases involving state or loyalist killings.

The six cases highlighted at Weston Park are not the only cases
in which there are serious concerns about state involvement in
murder. The four cases taken to Strasbourg were representative of
hundreds of cases which, over a thirty year period, were not
properly investigated.

Tony Blair said, when he established the Saville Inquiry into
Bloody Sunday, that

"Bloody Sunday was different because, where the state's own
authorities are concerned, we must be as sure as we can of the
truth, precisely because we pride ourselves on our democracy and
respect for the law, and on the professionalism and dedication of
our security forces."

The Finucane family and other human rights organisations such as
the Human Rights Commission do not regard the Weston Park
proposals as satisfying the requirements of Article 2 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

They do not see why they have to get over another hurdle.

The campaign will continue. The family will continue to seek
support. They have waited long enough for the truth.

Pat Finucane in his short career sought justice for a large
number of people. He was too successful.

I have to play my part in seeking justice for him. I owe him that
at least.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


>>>>>> Beyond Collusion - The UK Security Forces and the Murder
       of Patrick Finucane


By the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights

Full text available at http://www.serve.com/pfc/pf/pf12022002c.html




PREFACE

This report examines allegations of state involvement in the
murder of Patrick Finucane, a prominent Belfast human rights
lawyer who was murdered on February 12, 1989. In this report, we
piece together the evidence of state involvement that has emerged
gradually in the 13 years since Finucane was murdered. We also
present new allegations of security force involvement in the
killing and subsequent cover-ups. With this report, we hope to
force the UK government, by the weight of evidence, to finally
carry out a public inquiry into Patrick Finucane's murder.

Over the last ten years, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights
has conducted a series of missions to examine the human rights
situation in Northern Ireland. Based on those missions and
extensive outside research, we have published two previous
reports on Northern Ireland, the first in 1993 and the second in
1996. Both of these reports considered unfolding allegations of
state involvement in Finucane's murder. In addition, our first
report, Human Rights and Legal Defense in Northern Ireland,
looked into claims that members of the security forces had
systematically harassed and intimidated defense lawyers. Our
second report, At the Crossroads: Human Rights and the Northern
Ireland Peace Process, examined two main issues in addition to
the Finucane murder. The first was the continued reliance on
emergency legislation by both the United Kingdom and Republic of
Ireland. The second was the role of the judiciary in implementing
the emergency law framework and in facilitating the transition to
the rule of ordinary law.

The new allegations of state involvement in Finucane's murder
discussed in this report are based on information gatduring a
fact-finding mission to Northern Ireland in June 2001, as well as
on a series of follow-up interviews. The members of the mission
delegation were Michael Posner, Executive Director of the Lawyers
Committee; Martin Flaherty, Professor at Fordham Law School; and
Meg Satterthwaite, Policing Fellow at the Lawyers Committee, who
also conducted a preliminary fact-finding mission. The follow-up
interviews were conducted by Fiona Doherty, Policing Fellow at
the Lawyers Committee. The report also draws on information
gathered during our previous missions to Northern Ireland as well
as on the work of other human rights groups and journalists on
the Finucane case. The report was written by Meg Satterthwaite
and Fiona Doherty.

We would like to thank the many staff members and friends of the
Lawyers Committee who participated in our previous missions to
Northern Ireland, especially Elisa Massimino, the director of our
Washington, D.C. office. Our report would not have been possible
without the assistance of local human rights organizations. In
particular, we are grateful to Jane Winter of British Irish
Rights Watch, who provided us with invaluable assistance, as she
has done for many years. We also record our long-standing debt to
the Committee on the Administration of Justice, especially Martin
O'Brien, Paul Mageean, Maggie Beirne, and Liz Martin. We also
gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Fionnuala Ni Aolain and
Martin Flaherty. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude
to the family of Patrick Finucane.

Lawyers Committee for Human Rights

February 12, 2002


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Patrick Finucane was a high-profile solicitor in Northern Ireland
in the late 1970s and 1980s. He was well known for his work in
representing people arrested under the emergency or
anti-terrorism laws and for his use of litigation to challenge
the legal framework in which the UK security forces operated. On
the evening of February 12, 1989, masked gunmen broke into
Finucane's home and shot him 14 times in front of his wife and
three children. The next day, the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF)
claimed responsibility for the killing. The UFF is a cover name
used by the Ulster Defense Association (UDA), the largest
loyalist paramilitary group in Northern Ireland.

Over the last 13 years, there have been persistent reports that
members of the UK security forces were involved in the Finucane
murder. The UK government has firmly resisted calls to establish
a public inquiry into the killing, however, claiming that this
could prejudice on-going criminal investigations. In addition to
the investigation by Northern Ireland's Royal Ulster Constabulary
(RUC), there have been three separate criminal investigations led
by Sir John Stevens, the current Commissioner of the Metropolitan
Police in London. The findings of the first two Stevens
investigations have remained largely classified and the third,
established in 1999, is still ongoing. Despite these official
investigations, no one has ever been successfully prosecuted for
Patrick Finucane's murder.

Over the last ten years, the Lawyers Committee has conducted a
series of missions to Northern Ireland to investigate reports of
official collusion in the murder. The evidence that has emerged
over this period extends far beyond isolated acts of collusion by
individual members of the security forces and implicates the very
foundations of the government's security policy in Northern
Ireland. There are many allegations that units within both the
British Army and the RUC were involved at an institutional level
in the murder and subsequent cover-up.

This report is designed to provide a comprehensive look at
Patrick Finucane's case on the 13th anniversary of his murder.
The report binds together information that has gradually become
public over the last 13 years. The report also contains new
information about state involvement in the case, such as:

* RUC interrogation notes confirm that the RUC double agent
prosecuted for Finucane's murder in 1999 made significant
admissions about his involvement in the murder in 1990.

* A former member of a covert Army unit claims that both the Army
and the RUC knew that the UDA was targeting Patrick Finucane. He
also claims that, in the run up to the killing, both the Army and
RUC knew of two prior UDA plans to assassinate Finucane. Despite
this, Finucane was never warned about the dangers that he faced.

* A recently-retired police officer details the many threats he
received from officers in the RUC's intelligence division in
response to his attempts to pursue the prosecution of a man who
had confessed to being one of the two gunmen in the murder.



The Army's Force Research Unit (FRU) and Brian Nelson

The Force Research Unit (FRU) was a covert unit of the British
Army that infiltrated agents into republican and loyalist
paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. FRU officers, operating
as "handlers," debriefed and counseled these agents. Documents
recording the contacts between FRU agents and their handlers have
revealed that the purpose of the FRU, at least with respect to
loyalist paramilitary groups, was to redirect the killing power
of loyalist paramilitaries away from random sectarian killings
towards "legitimate" republican targets.

In 1987, the FRU recruited Brian Nelson to infiltrate the
intelligence structure of the UDA. With the active assistance and
resources of the FRU, Nelson soon brought new professionalism to
the UDA's information-gathering system. According to multiple
sources, Brian Nelson prepared targeting information on Patrick
Finucane with the knowledge of his FRU handlers. FRU documents
pertaining to Nelson were withheld from the Stevens
investigations and subsequently found to have been altered. On
the night before Stevens planned to arrest Nelson as part of his
first investigation, Nelson fled to England and Stevens's offices
were destroyed by a fire. According to an FRU whistleblower, that
fire was set by the British Army.


RUC Special Branch and William Stobie

A second intelligence agency implicated in the Finucane murder is
RUC Special Branch. Repeatedly described as "a force within a
force," Special Branch is a unit so secretive that even other RUC
officers do not know about its activities. Like the FRU, Special
Branch ran agents in Northern Ireland's paramilitary
organizations. At the time of the Finucane murder, William Stobie
was simultaneously an agent for Special Branch and a
quartermaster for the UDA in West Belfast. As quartermaster,
Stobie was responsible for supplying weapons for UDA missions in
his area.

In September 1990, William Stobie was detained for seven days and
repeatedly interrogated by officers of the RUC's Criminal
Investigations Division (CID). Stobie admitted that several days
before Patrick Finucane's murder, a UDA superior had instructed
him to supply guns for an operation. Stobie also admitted that he
had retrieved the weapons after the murder. During the
interrogation, Stobie also explained that he was an agent for
Special Branch. He insisted that he had kept his handlers fully
informed of developments as they arose and that Special Branch
had known the names of the UDA members involved. Despite his
admissions, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) decided on
January 16, 1991 not to charge Stobie in connection with
Finucane's murder.


Martin Ingram's Allegations

The Lawyers Committee has conducted a series of interviews with a
former FRU officer, who spoke to us under the pseudonym Martin
Ingram. According to Ingram, there were three separate UDA plans
to assassinate Patrick Finucane. The first two plans were
thwarted, but the third succeeded. Ingram claims that both the
FRU and Special Branch knew that the UDA was targeting Patrick
Finucane. He says that they also knew, in the run up to the
killing, that there had already been two attempts against his
life. Despite this, Finucane was not warned of the dangers that
he faced.

Ingram told the Lawyers Committee that he did not know whether
the FRU had advance knowledge of the third plan. He explained
that although Brian Nelson was responsible for gathering
intelligence for UDA killing teams, he would not necessarily have
known the date and time of impending attacks. Martin Ingram
believed that Special Branch must have had advance knowledge of
the third attack, however, given its own sources within the UDA
in West Belfast. Ingram told us that Special Branch should have
been electronically monitoring the weapons under William Stobie's
control. He also told us that he knew with "cast iron certainty"
that the leader of the UDA in West Belfast was working for
Special Branch at the time of Finucane's murder. This UDA leader,
Tommy "Tucker" Lyttle, was in charge of both Nelson and Stobie.
Ingram claimed that it was Lyttle who instructed Nelson to
compile targeting information on Finucane.


The Possible Instigation of the Murder by RUC Officers

These allegations concerning Lyttle are highly significant in the
context of reports that RUC officers actively procured Finucane's
murder. In 1992, a source found reliable by the Lawyers Committee
informed us that three weeks before Patrick Finucane's murder,
RUC officers told three prominent UDA men under police detention
that the UDA should target Patrick Finucane. In 1995, BBC
journalist John Ware published an article detailing a similar
scenario. Ware had interviewed Tucker Lyttle before his death in
October 1995. Lyttle confirmed that two RUC detectives had
originally suggested the idea of murdering Finucane. Lyttle told
Ware that when this suggestion was relayed to him, he was so
astonished that he asked a "regular contact" in Special Branch
why Finucane was being pushed. Lyttle claimed that this contact
had not discouraged the idea that Finucane should be shot.


The Prosecution and Subsequent Murder of William Stobie

In 1999, a few months after Stevens began his third
investigation, William Stobie was charged with the murder of
Patrick Finucane. In his defense, Stobie claimed that he had not
known that Finucane was the target before the murder. He also
claimed that he had given his Special Branch handlers enough
information to prevent the killing (and in the alternative to
apprehend the killers and retrieve the murder weapons). He also
claimed that given his 1990 admissions, the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP) had long possessed the information on which
the charges were based. After extensive delays, the DPP
ultimately did not offer any evidence in the case. William Stobie
was found not guilty on November 26, 2001. The next day, he
called for a public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane.

Two weeks later, William Stobie was ambushed outside his home and
shot several times at close range, reportedly by the UDA. The UK
government knew that Stobie was at risk from the UDA, but failed
to protect him. Stobie had repeatedly applied for government
protection after his role as a double agent was exposed in 1999.
Working in conjunction with Stobie's solicitor, the Lawyers
Committee had raised Stobie's need for official protection with
many UK government officials. Although Stobie had requested only
modest security measures, the government denied his applications.


Cover Up: Special Branch and the Story of Johnston Brown

In late 2000, news surfaced that Special Branch had blocked
attempts by fellow RUC officers to prosecute one of the two
gunmen in the Finucane murder. These allegations were made by CID
officer Johnston Brown. Brown claimed that on October 3, 1991, a
prominent loyalist had confessed to being one of the two gunmen
in the murder. Instead of pursuing a prosecution, however,
Special Branch decided to recruit the confessor as an informer.

In interviews with the Lawyers Committee, Brown explained that he
had vigorously opposed Special Branch's decision not to pursue
the prosecution. As a result, he and his partner were harassed
and threatened by Special Branch officers. In November 1991, for
example, he learned that Special Branch officers had tipped off
the confessor about Brown's desire to prosecute him, a move that
placed Brown's life in immediate danger. In April 1999, Brown
told the Stevens III team about the 1991 confession. A Special
Branch officer later threatened to have guns planted in his home.
Brown told the Lawyers Committee that he still feels very much
under threat from Special Branch.


RECOMMENDATIONS

On the 13th anniversary of Patrick Finucane's murder, the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights calls on the UK government to take the
following steps:

I. Abandon the Weston Park Proposal

Following the political negotiations at Weston Park in July 2001,
the UK and Irish governments announced that they would jointly
appoint "a judge of international standing from outside both
jurisdictions to undertake a thorough investigation of collusion"
in the murder of Patrick Finucane, as well as in five other
controversial cases. The governments revealed that in all six
cases, the international judge would be asked to review all the
papers, interview "anyone who can help," and report back with
recommendations (which could include the establishment of a
public inquiry).

The Lawyers Committee is deeply dissatisfied with this proposal.
How is one judge - with currently undefined powers - to review
the papers and interview witnesses in all six of these
complicated cases? The Finucane case, alone, has been active for
much of the last 13 years. The Lawyers Committee believes that
the international judge proposal will prevent the truth from
emerging in these cases for many years to come.

II. Establish a Public Inquiry into Patrick Finucane's Murder

The Lawyers Committee believes that the official investigations
into Finucane's murder have not satisfied the requirements of
international law. Under Article 2 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, for example, the investigation must be carried out
independently from the members of the security forces implicated
in the killing. Despite this, we understand that all three
Stevens investigations were instigated by the RUC and report back
to the RUC.* Article 2 also requires that the investigation have
a sufficient element of public scrutiny to secure practical
accountability. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights also requires an open and accountable
investigation. The investigations have remained largely
classified, however.

Given the deficiencies of the official investigations to date, we
believe that the UK must immediately establish a public inquiry
in the Finucane case. Indeed, as the government delays, critical
evidence has disappeared and witnesses are afraid for their
lives.** On December 12, 2001, William Stobie was murdered
shortly after he called for a public inquiry into the killing.
The government had refused his applications for protection.

The long list of those who have supported the call for a public
inquiry includes the Irish government, the U.S. House of
Representatives, the European Parliament, the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the
Independence of Judges and Lawyers, and the U.N. Special
Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights
Defenders. The Lawyers Committee believes that a public inquiry
in the Finucane case should be conducted by an independent
tribunal operating with the powers of the High Court.

III. Commit to the Accountability and Reform of the Security
Services

A central element of the 1998 Good Friday agreement was a
transformation of the RUC into a police service built around
notions of accountability and human rights. These two themes -
accountability and respect for human rights - were building
blocks for the September 1999 report of the Independent
Commission on Policing (the "Patten" Commission). As the
government has taken steps to implement police reform, no issue
has loomed more important to the success of that effort than
creating a visible sense of accountability. In particular there
continues to be a widely held perception that police officers and
other members of the security forces who act outside the law have
not and will not be held accountable for their actions. That
perception is particularly stark in relation to the members of
intelligence units.

No case better illustrates this problem than the murder of
Patrick Finucane. In the 13 years since Finucane was gunned down
in his home, the evidence of security force involvement in the
murder and subsequent cover up has continued to swell. Despite
this, the record demonstrates a decided lack of political will to
get at and make public the full truth about what happened. This
failure to publicly uncover the truth undercuts the government's
commitment to fundamental principles of democratic
accountability.









c.  RM Distribution and others.  Articles may be reprinted with credit.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                            RM Distribution
                Irish Republican News and Information
http://irlnet.com/rmlist/

PO Box 160, Galway, Ireland           Phone/Fax: (353)1-6335113
PO Box 8630, Austin TX 78713, USA     mailto:rmlist-reply@irlnet.com