The United Nations Torture Committee has agreed to hear the substantive complaint of a survivor of the Magdalene Laundries.
The communication was submitted by Elizabeth Coppin, who alleges that the State failed to ensure accountability or comprehensive redress for the abuse she suffered in three Magdalene Laundries from 1964 to 1968. The Gardaí decided not to act when she lodged complaints with them, failed to open a criminal investigation into her allegations when she filed a civil suit and failed to launch an investigation based on her testimony in the 2002 Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. In delivering its preliminary decision, the Committee held that Mrs Coppin’s complaint was admissible under Article 22 of the Convention Against Torture.
In its submissions, Ireland contended that the Committee did not have competence to hear the communication as the alleged abuse and her complaints to the authorities occurred before 11 May 2002 when the Convention entered into force for Ireland. The complainant argued that the Irish State is engaging in a continuing violation of its Convention obligations to investigate allegations of abuse and to ensure that her complaint is examined by the competent authorities. Article 12 obliges States to ensure that its competent authorities proceed in a prompt and impartial investigation when they have reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture took place within the territory. Under Article 13, States must ensure that an individual with an allegation of torture has the right to complain to, and have the complaint examined by, competent authorities. There is no requirement for formal complaints; it is enough for complaints to be brought to their attention. Paragraph 17 of General Comment 3 noted that the failure to investigate, criminally prosecute or allow civil proceedings can violate Article 14 as it requires States to ensure that victims obtain redress for Convention violations.
The complainant also noted that Ireland had affirmed these violations on several occasions since the entry into force of the Convention, for example when they established two ex gratia schemes. Despite this, the Irish authorities had repeatedly failed to investigate the complainant’s allegations. The Committee determined that, for the purpose of admissibility, the complainant had adequately alleged that Ireland was committing a continuing violation of its Convention obligations.
Ireland also argued that the complainant had not exhausted domestic remedies before lodging her complaint because she never complained to the national authorities about its failure to investigate her allegations of abuse. The complainant countered that there was no domestic remedy available to her to challenge the Gardaí’s refusal to investigate her complaint because she would have no cause of action under Irish law. In Irish law, the Gardaí owe no duty of care to victims of crime. The complainant also noted that she lodged complaints with several Irish authorities, urging them to use their discretionary powers to investigate her allegations but was refused. She highlighted that the State had not identified a remedy that she could have pursued that would have been effective. The Committee concluded that there were no domestic remedies available to the complainant which would provide effective relief.
Ireland also contended that the complainant was precluded from bringing this communication because she waived her right of action when she participated in two domestic ex gratia redress schemes. In a previous General Comment (No. 3), the Committee said that collective reparation programmes do not affect an individual’s right to a remedy and redress. In a previous Concluding Observation on Ireland, the Committee recommended that victims of Convention violations should have a right to bring civil actions, even if they have participated in redress schemes, to ensure that these historical abuses come to light. The Committee concluded that waivers cannot relieve Ireland of its obligation to investigate allegations of continuing violations and they do not impair a complainant’s ability to lodge a communication with the Committee.
Click here for the full decision.