The Power of Truth: a Means of Overcoming Past Abuses and Maintaining People’s Confidence in the Justice System

In the early morning of the 7th of April 1976, Osgur Breatnach signed a false self-accusatory statement admitting guilt for taking part in the Sallins mail train robbery: that document served as key evidence for his subsequent wrongful conviction by the Special Criminal Court. The circumstances that led to his flawed confession were never ascertained: despite the Court of Criminal Appeal exonerating Osgur, it failed to address the causes of the injuries found on Osgur’s body immediately after the Garda interrogation, which medical reports deemed to be consistent with the allegations of torture and police brutality. 

Recently, on the 25th of January 2022, Sinn Féin politician and Member of the Irish Parliament (Oireachtas) Pa Daly raised the need to carry out an independent, statutory, public enquiry into Osgur’s and similar cases and asked for the Prime Minister (Taoiseach) Micheál Martin’s support. However, the Taoiseach expressed his scepticism and opposition towards this request, questioning its lengthy procedures and its ability to bring closure to the victims.

Therefore, although almost 46 years have passed, yet Osgur’s campaign to unveil the truth and obtain acknowledgment about the abuses he suffered while under State’s custody has not ended. 

According to Article 1 (1) of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) “the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession [..]”. The crime of torture is considered by international human rights bodies as a particular heinous violation of human rights for the particularly painful consequences it produces on victims, so much so that they have recognized victims’ right to truth.

The right to truth is a rather “new” right, originated in the 1980s in Latin American Countries which were left to deal with the widespread perpetration of gross human rights violations by military regimes and their systematic impunity. Its greatest innovation consists in giving victims and their families a central role in the prosecution of past human rights abuses, namely the right to “obtain clarification of the facts relating to the violations and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent State organs” (Bámaca Velásquez v Guatemala Case, IACHR Series C No 70 para 201). Therefore, the right to truth is a procedural right, which requires States to comply with the duty to carry out a proper and effective investigation and disclose all the relevant information when serious allegations of such grave crimes are made (Trujillo-Oroza v. Bolivia IACHR Series C No 92 para 114–115).

The right to truth has now largely been recognized in international human rights law thanks to the work of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee. In fact, in 2010 the UN General Assembly proclaimed the 24th of March as the International Day of the Right to Truth. Its widespread acknowledgment concurs to stress the importance and legitimacy of Osgur’s campaign for an independent public enquiry to expose the injustices behind the Sallins Case, which caused him and his family profound suffering, along with post-traumatic stress disorder and undeserved notoriety. 

Besides, the right to truth has an even broader scope: its first goal is not necessarily to bring the perpetrators of a crime to prosecution, but rather to “offer a sense of closure, enable [..] dignity to be restored and provide a remedy and reparation”. A State failure to carry out a full investigation on serious allegations of grave human rights violations and to ensure accountability for its wrongdoings prolongs the victims and their families’ suffering, while also preventing them from completing the healing process. To this day, the Irish Government persists in refusing to fulfil Osgur’s request for truth about his case and, on the contrary, it ignores and buries the occurrence of any act of torture perpetrated by the hands of its police officers, depriving him of justice, of any acknowledgment of his long-lasting suffering and even of an apology. 

This despicable attitude is not only cruel towards Osgur and his family and a violation of International Human Rights Law, but it could also jeopardise the “public confidence in [the State’s] adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts” (El-Masri v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ECHR 2012-VI 263, para 192). Indeed, the right to truth also has a collective dimension, which is aimed at establishing the “historical truth” pertaining human right violations, in order to maintain the people’s faith in the rule of law and ensure the flourishing of democracy (El-Masri v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ECHR 2012-VI 263, para 192). Therefore, it appears that the aim of Osgur’s campaign transcends the private sphere of achieving justice for its promoter, but it has an even greater importance. It bears a general and societal interest in making State’s institutions more transparent and collaborative with its citizens, especially when the former are involved in grave violations of human rights to the detriment of the latter, in a spirit of reconciliation. 

Bibliography.

Antkowiak TM, 'Truth as Right and Remedy in International Human Rights Experience' (2002) 23 Mich J Int'l L 977 p. 979.

Hayner PB, Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth Commissions (London: Routledge, 2nd edn, 2010). 

Mendez JE, 'Accountability for past abuses' (1997) 19 HRQ 255. 

Naqvi Y, ‘The Right to the Truth in International Law: Fact or Fiction?’ (2006) 88 IRRC 245 p. 249.

Teitel R, Beyond Vienna & Beijing: Human Rights Theory: Human Rights Genealogy, 66 FORDHAM L. REV. 301, 315 (1997).

Vedaschi A, ‘Globalization of Human Rights and Mutual Influence between Courts. The Innovative Reverse Path of the Right to the Truth*’ in Shimon Shetreet (ed), The Culture of Judicial Independence (Brill Nijhoff 2014) 117.