i ii RYAN REPORT FOLLOW- UP Submission to the United Nations Committee Against Torture “The redress board and the commission were intended to be non-adversarial but they ended up causing further abuse and undermined the survivors...The redress scheme was supposed to minimise the distress caused to our survivors but in many cases it added to the hurt. Some felt further trauma because the abuse they suffered was not sufficiently recognised. They felt pushed into accepting settlements they believed to be insufficient and were then legally gagged from talking about the matter. They were further traumatised through the commission…They (religious orders) trampled over the survivors by challenging, denying and obstructing the process. Protecting the orders was put before the abuse of the victims. The abuse, neglect and disregard of our survivors must end now.”1 Deputy, John Gormley “The scheme is meant to enable people live a fuller life, but the way it’s run, it’s disabling people. It’s abuse, again. We should be treated as citizens, with the dignity and respect we lost in our childhood. David Dineen, Victim This report has been written by: AnneMarie Crean, Founder of Reclaiming Self CLG Fionna Fox, Solicitor (pro bono) on behalf of Reclaiming Self, CLG 1 Deputy John Gormley remarks at the Ryan Report Dail Debate, June 2009. iii Table of Contents Section 1 1.1 Executive Summary Section 2 Question 1 2.1 Background and remit of the Implementation Plan 2.2 Children in State Care Recommended Question 2.3 The Memorial Recommended Question Section 3 Question 2 3.1 Abuse and Disclosure: Response of the Catholic Church 3.2 The State’s Response 3.3 Prosecutions Recommended Question 3.4 Examples of testimonies form Victims regarding preclusion of disclosure 3.5 Impact and effect of the Ryan Report (2009) from the victims prospective Recommended Question 3.6 Testimonies from Victims expressing their opinions about the Ryan Report (2009) iv 3.7 Deaths within the institutions outlined in the Ryan Report (2009) Recommended Question 3.8 Impact and effect of the Redress scheme from the victims prospective. Recommended Question 3.9 Testimonies from Victims expressing their opinions about the Redress Scheme Section 4 Question 3 4.1 Profile of Victims 4.2 Failure by state to ensure all victims obtained redress Recommended Question 4.3 Failure by State to provide rehabilitation to all victims Recommended Question 4.4 Rehabilitation measures to those victims who qualify are inadequate Recommended Question 4.5 Concerns that purported rehabilitation methods are in fact a form of secondary victimisation 4.6 Victims not allowed to choose service provider Recommended Question 4.7 Rehabilitation for victims’ families Recommended Question 1 Section 1 1.1 Executive Summary The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA) (2009)2 was established with regard to the principles of the ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ paradigm which was utilised in South Africa.3 However both the State and Church failed to fully provide both ‘truth’ and ‘reconciliation’ to victims due to the continued denial of abuse by Religious Orders, the use of pseudonyms to protect the identity of named abusers, and the failure to prosecute on foot of allegations of abuse. The failure to investigate and prosecute abusers has had the effect of denying victims justice and healing. The continued culture of secrecy, lack of transparency and accountability has been facilitated by legislation and operations that claim to be ‘victim’ orientated. The lack of accountability, identified in the report by Holohan (2011),4 enables abuse to go unchecked and unresolved, as each Government passes the problem on to the next or employs quick fix measures to create the appearance that action is being taken. ‘Power’ is a central facet to victim rehabilitation. Unfortunately, within the remit of institutional child abuse there is a continual imbalance of power dynamics between victims and State, particularly visible through the State’s continued dismissal of victim’s concerns. The history of treatment of victims by the State and handling of abuse scandals demonstrate the failure of the State to address the care and treatment of those affected by the systemic abuse they encountered as children and the impact this has on their lives. The State’s apology to the victims in 1999 though meaningful at the time, has been undermined in the face of cover-ups and an indemnity deal that protected the institutions implicated while victims were not permitted to name those who abused them. Legal and 2 CICA ‘Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse’, also known as the ‘Ryan Report’, is a 5 volume piece of research documenting the abuses experienced by survivors of institutional child abuse in Ireland. It was established on foot of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act, 2000. Available at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/7/enacted/en/pdf 3 Powell, F. W & Scanlon , M. (2015) Dark secrets of childhood: Media power, child abuse and public scandals. Policy Press: University of Bristol. 4 Holohan, C. (2011) In Plain Sight. Amnesty International Ireland. Available at https://www.amnesty.ie/in- plain-sight/ 2 administrative procedures designed to provide justice and reparation had the effect of re- victimising and further traumatising some victims. Today thousands of victims have received neither compensation nor rehabilitative measures. Victims at the Redress Board5 hearing voiced concern over their treatment and the failure of the scheme to understand their experiences and life outcomes. Those who were deemed entitled to redress are often left with no support from the State, to engage with what passes as rehabilitation, in the form of Caranua. This organisation has been accused of re-abusing victims. However, the State has failed to scrutinise this organisation, repeating behaviour of inaction that allowed systemic abuse to foster in the past. It is submitted that the State has not properly explored and addressed the effect of institutional child abuse that exists in and between many victim families, and also to fully acknowledge the cycle of institutionalism that exists in and between some victim families. The high rates of premature mortality of victims, as well as an indication of the level of suicide rates as a result of institutional abuse have not been fully explored and addressed by the State. A noted recommendation of the ‘Institutional child sexual abuse and suicidal behaviour: Outcomes of a literature review, consultation meetings and a qualitative study’6 in 2007 was: … a lack of studies addressing the relationship between institutional child sexual abuse and suicidal behaviour and related mental health difficulties, as well as protective factors. Future research should focus on the effects of child sexual abuse perpetrated by both adults and by peers.7 There have been a number of shortcomings of the Implementation Plan (2009)8 regarding the welfare and protection of children in care, children from minorities, and homeless children. 5 Redress Board, refers to scheme outlined under Residential Institutions Redress Act, (2002). Available at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2002/act/13/enacted/en/pdf 6 O’Riordan, M. & Arensman, E (2007) “Institutional Child Sexual Abuse and Suicidal Behaviour: Outcomes of a Literature Review, Consultation Meetings and a Qualitative Study” National Suicide Research Foundation,. (2007) 7 O’Riordan, M. & Arensman, (2007)“Institutional child sexual abuse and suicidal behaviour: Outcomes of a literature review.” National Suicide Research Foundation, p. 3 8 An outline of The Implementation Plan (2009) is provided in detail in Section 2.1. 3 The Journey to Light Memorial9 is still an outstanding issue. There has been failure on part of the State to actively engage with victims on the Memorial Committee regarding delays and possible Memorial changes. This report aims to outline the failures of the Church and State in adequately addressing the recommendations of the CICA report and their failure to provide redress and rehabilitation to all victims. Specifically this report will examine the States’ response10 by answering the three questions posed by UNCAT11: 1) Indicate how it proposes to implement all the recommendations of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and indicate the time frame for doing so. 2) Institute prompt, independent and thorough investigations into all cases of abuse as found by the report and, if appropriate, prosecute and punish perpetrators. 3) Ensure that all victims of abuse obtain redress and have an enforceable right to compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible Section 2 Question 1 Indicate how it proposes to implement all the recommendations of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and indicate the time frame for doing so. 2.1 Background and remit of the Implementation Plan After the publication of the findings from the CICA (2009), also known as “The Ryan Report”, Dáil Éireann acknowledged that: 9 An outline of the Journey to Light Memorial is provided in section 2.3. 10 Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention pursuant to the optional reporting procedure; Second periodic reports of States parties due in 2015, Ireland. This report was submitted to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, on 23rd November, 2015. 11 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, or Punishment (2011) Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: Ireland, paragraph 20. 4 everything possible must be done to ensure the grievous mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future and underlines the importance of the Government’s commitment to fully implement the recommendations of the Commission’s report”12 Based on the findings of the Ryan Report (2009) twenty recommendations were identified and complied with.