CAT/C/SR.91
par
31. He also noted that there was official resistance to video recordings of interrogation and he had been surprised that the rationale offered by a senior officer of the State for such resistance was that, if recordings were made, those willing to give information would fear that their own organizations might find out about it. Such an observation was, however, equally true if the person made a verbal or written statement. Moreover, the general conclusion might be that opposition to video recordings of interrogation was prompted by fears that they would reveal that many of the allegations were in fact substantiated.
32. A letter from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the editor of the Guardian on 31 October 1991 statad, in the defence of officers against whom allegations of ill-treatment had been made in a report by the newspaper, that there had been 222 complaints in respect of Castlereagh in 1989, none of which had been substantiated, and that there had been 223 in 1990, none of which had been substantiated. The letter further stated that, in all cases, the completed investigation had been examined by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. He requested information on that Commission and asked whether any settlements had been made on behalf of the Government with complainants in respect of ill-treatment at the hands of interrogating officers, particularly at Castlereagh.
33. He also expressed concern at the fact that the letter from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary contained the rationale that, while upholding the rights of persons in custody, it was important not to lose sight of the right of the majority to be protected from murder, maiming and bombing. The inference he drew from such a statement was that, where there was a potential for murder, maimimg and bombing, the rights of persons in custody could be overriden. The United Kingdom had nevertheless voluntarily undertaken to fulfil the obligations established in the Convention and, consequently, whatever protection it provided for the potential victims of such crimes, it could not derogate from those obligations.
34. He drew attention to the case of an application for a writ of habeas corpus made on behalf of Brian Gillen, who had been held under security legislation. The judge, in determining prima facie the allegations made by Mr. Gillen, had had to decide whether or not habeas corpus was warranted. Mr. Gillen had alleged physical ill-treatment during interrogation at Castlereagh and a writ of habeas corpus had been issued. The account of the judgement and the information collected by Amnesty International and other bodies suggested that there was reason to find in a preliminary hearing that there was indeed a prima facie case. In the light of that case, he therefore requested the United Kingdom delegation to comment on the régime which existed in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to the strong allegations made in connection with interrogation at Castlereagh. He hoped that the délégation would be able to reassure the Committee that the United Kingdom Government did not intend to extend the rules relating to the right of silence in Northern Ireland to the rest of the country and that the current regime did not violate the terms of the Convention or, alternatively, that whatever changes might be required would be made in order to ensure that the provisions of the Convention were complied with in relation to Northern Ireland.
F