: Latest News

A registered Northern Ireland charity, Ulster Human Rights Watch, is urging innocent victims of terrorism to apply for payments they may be entitled to under the Troubles Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme.

UHRW says it will offer every possible assistance to those who wish to apply for the scheme to write a Troubles related incident and impact statement that will be part of their application to the Victims’ Payments Board.

UHRW Advocacy Manager, Axel Schmidt, said: “We are here to help people who might be put off by the complexity of the application process.

“Innocent victims of terrorism, many of whom have suffered in silence for decades, deserve to receive every possible assistance. Under this scheme, which is administered by the Victims’ Payments Board, successful applicants can qualify for annual payments of up to £10,000.

“Victims who suffered serious physical injuries from the actions of cruel and heartless terrorists may qualify for the highest levels of annual compensation. Also, people who were left traumatised and are suffering long-term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), or other psychological conditions, may also qualify to benefit from this long-overdue compensation scheme.

“It is crucial to ensure that no one, among those who qualify for the scheme, is left out. People shouldn’t feel they are on their own. Ulster Human Rights Watch is here to help, we can be contacted by phone on 028 3833 4500 or by email at info@uhrw.org.uk and will be only too happy to assist.

“Awards made under this scheme are an acknowledgement of the suffering many victims of terrorism have gone through. Having waited years for this scheme to be introduced, we are now working hard to see it delivered for them.”

The advocacy charity for innocent victims of terrorism, Ulster Human Rights Watch (UHRW), is calling on the Government to ‘hit the pause button’ on legacy legislation.

The Lurgan-based organisation follows comments made by the former Chief Constable, Sir George Hamilton, who described the proposed move by the Government as ‘bonkers’ and ‘crazy.’

UHRW Advocacy Manager, Axel Schmidt, said: “Sir George’s comment on the proposed legacy legislation corresponds with our own views.

“For the former Chief Constable of the PSNI to describe what the Government is planning to do in such graphic language points to the folly of attempting to force through what is effectively an amnesty.

“What is suggested is a denial and a shocking injustice to victims of terrorism. The right to life, which implies the duty to investigate, is sacrosanct and should not be made into a political football. It may be politically expedient and convenient for Ministers to draw a line under the past, but abandoning all hope, however slim, of prosecuting killers is a shameful political manoeuvre.

“Sir George was the most senior police officer in Northern Ireland for five years and his salient, direct and pertinent comment should make the Government reflect and hit the ‘pause’ button.

“What the Government is planning is unacceptable and Sir George has said neither former officers nor military personnel want an amnesty.

“In my view, he has hit the nail on the head with his timely intervention. We must be able to investigate the past and not close the door to justice being done.”

The UK Government Command Paper proposals to introduce a statute of limitations for terrorist crimes and create an information recovery body with an oral history initiative are unacceptable for victims of terrorism and former members of the security forces, who defended and protected democracy and human rights against terrorism during the Troubles.

The justification given for the introduction of a statute of limitations is that there is a diminishing prospect of seeing successful prosecutions. However, this is not a valid reason for removing the possibility of seeing justice done. Perpetrators of acts of terrorism should always be made accountable if new evidence, that could lead to a conviction, becomes available. Recent investigations against security forces are not a reason for introducing such a statute of limitations either, as any perceived unfairness can be considered during the investigation carried out by the police and the way the Public Prosecution Service makes its decisions.

What the Government calls a statute of limitations is in fact an amnesty. An amnesty applies to past offences, which is what the Government is seeking to do, while a statute of limitations usually has no retroactive effect. Furthermore, a statute of limitations is prohibited under international law for crimes against humanity which many, if not all, crimes committed by terrorist organisations during the Troubles were. Consequently, a statute of limitations is an ill-advised idea and should be abandoned by the Government.

The proposed information recovery body is to deal with deaths and serious injuries. It is suggested that once the threat of prosecution is removed by way of a statute of limitations, those with potentially useful information about a Troubles-related death or serious injury would be encouraged to come forward. Clearly, this process would serve the interests of terrorists and their sympathisers, who would be free to re-write the history of the Troubles, vilifying security forces and justifying terrorism. It will be of little help to victims of terrorism since there will be no way of verifying that the information provided is truthful. The disclosure of information should instead come from State agencies following a reliable legal investigative process that would allow the information to be challenged and verified.

If the possibility of prosecuting terrorists is removed, the proposed oral history initiative would favour storytelling from people from all backgrounds, including those who engaged in terrorism and their sympathisers. Those involved in terrorism would seek to justify their engagement in terrorism and to blame the authorities and the security forces for the Troubles. Innocent victims and former members of the security forces would be deterred from engaging in this process and the educational use of this initiative would be doomed to failure. There is a fear that such an oral history initiative would have the opposite outcome of encouraging radicalisation among younger generations.

The fulfilment of human rights obligations by the United Kingdom, mainly under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, implies that the existing legal processes are to be maintained for the recovery of information with a view to identifying and prosecuting perpetrators of acts of terrorism. There is therefore a need for a positive alternative that prevents terrorists and their sympathisers from corrupting the investigative processes designed to establish the truth, deliver justice and create historical archives for educational purposes with the potential for achieving reconciliation. Law-abiding citizens and former members of the security forces throughout the United Kingdom should be prepared along with the Ulster Human Rights Watch to engage in the implementation of such an alternative.