Torture of ‘Hooded Men’ is a war crime, court is told

Posted by Jim on February 17, 2017

One of 14 Irish nationalists tortured during internment was bitten by a
British soldier’s dog and forced to drink from the animal’s dish, the
High Court heard this week.

School caretaker Sean McKenna was also slammed into concrete posts and
dragged through streets barefoot after being taken from his Newry home
in August 1971, it was revealed.

Lawyers for his daughter argued that the interrogation techniques
“ruined” him and worsened a heart condition that led his death four
years later at the age of 45.

Mary McKenna is taking legal action along with other surviving members
of those who became known as the ‘Hooded Men’, in a bid to secure an
independent and human rights-compliant investigation into their
treatment.

Proceedings have been issued against the the PSNI police, British and
Stormont authorities over their failure to properly investigate and
order a full inquiry.

Five standard torture techniques were used against the men as part of
what was called “deep interrogation”, but others faced other acts of
brutality and violence with the aim of extracting information from them.

Government papers recently uncovered have shown that former British
Prime Minister Edward Heath was involved in the decision-making process
which directed the torture, while Stormont’s Prime Minister at the time,
Brian Faulkner, was said to have been personally briefed on the
deployment of the methods.

The court heard Ms McKenna was 14-years-old when her father and brother
were both taken from their house by British soldiers. In a statement she
recalled how when he returned home 10 days later he was “a very broken
man”.

Reading from her affidavit, barrister Karen Quinlivan QC said: “He was
sitting crying and was very shaky. I remember him telling me that he had
been hooded and handcuffed to a British solider who had an Alsatian dog
with him.

“He told me that the dog had been allowed to bite him and that he had
been required to drink from the same dish as the dog.”

His internment ended in May 1972, when he was released on medical
grounds to enter a psychiatric hospital. But the impact of being
subjected to the torture caused his psychiatric break-down, according to
his daughter, and he died of a heart attack just three years later.

The medical evidence backed allegations that his trauma was responsible
for death as well as psychiatric injuries, the court was told.

It was further revealed that a government minister visited a training
exercise for the “interrogation methods” in 1971. The court was told
that the military taught the torture methods to RUC Special Branch
officers who sought assurances of immunity from prosecution before
carrying them out.

“The allegation in this case is that the decision to sanction that
torture was taken by senior ministers,” said Hugh Southey QC.

“We would argue that the failure to prosecute government ministers has
the potential to undermine the rule of law; it suggests impunity, it
suggests ministers are above the law.”

In another statement heard by the court, one of the group recalled
collapsing and being punched in the stomach to revive him. He was
against the wall for three days, subjected to kicks or beatings every
time he dropped to the ground or fell asleep.

“The applicant described suffering hallucinations and prayed for death,”
Mr Southey said.

His treatment also resulted in serious psychiatric and psychological
consequences, including treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Based on the contents of memos and other documents, Mr Southey pointed
out it was not in question that the men were subjected to treatment that
violated their human rights, nor was it disputed either that
authorisation came from senior government ministers.

A deliberate decision was made to prevent the full truth coming out with
accusations of criminality against the state, he argued.

“There was throughout the 1970s a lack of candour essentially about
precisely what ministers were aware of,” Mr Southey said.

He insisted that any ministerial involvement in what happened to the
‘Hooded Men’ should be subjected to criminal proceedings.

“If one doesn’t prosecute people at the highest level it gives rise to a
greater sense of impunity,” he said.

He also referred to the definition of war crimes applied under the Rome
Statute governing the International Criminal Court sitting at The Hague.

“It’s difficult to see how torture in the context one is talking about,
people detained by the State in the circumstances they were, is any less
serious than torture inflicted in a wartime situation,” the barrister
said.

“Where one is looking at allegations of torture, which is an issue in
this case, one is at the level of a war crime.”