FOR some, the past may be a foreign country, but for those whose loved ones were killed and injured during the years of violence here, it is a place of immense significance and sorrow.
While no death can be regarded as more important than another, a full-page advertisement in this newspaper yesterday highlighted the failure of the British Government to conduct effective, independent and reasonably prompt investigations into a number of killings.
It is a situation which adds unnecessarily to the suffering of many.
In highlighting these cases, the Pat Finucane Centre and Justice for the Forgotten quoted the view of Nils Muizneiks, European Human Rights Commissioner, that the British Government is in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. It is difficult to disregard his opinion.
The British Government's defence is that national security must take priority over independent investigation. It is an argument which has validity in some circumstances, such as an on-going war.
But is it really suggesting that in every one of more than 150 killings, some of which happened over forty years ago, there are current national security issues?
If it is, then there is more to these killings than we have previously imagined and it might reasonably be argued that the case for an independent investigatory mechanism becomes significantly more pressing.
The Government's failure to act fuels the belief that it may have something to hide. This does little to help those who advocate peace and democracy here.
Government supporters argue that since it was not the only organisation involved in violence, there is also an onus on all paramilitary groups to reveal what they know about the deaths for which they were responsible.
This is a reasonable line of thought. However, it cannot lead to the conclusion that Government can therefore be excused from failing to live up to its legal responsibilities. The British Government cannot claim that it reserves the right to behave like an illegal organisation.
The failure of the political parties to agree a way forward on dealing with the past has not helped to address the concerns of those who are still grieving.
It is particularly disappointing that the agreement reached a year ago at Stormont House could not be sustained in the more recent Fresh Start document. The problem will not be solved by shelving it and it does not help to include it on the same agenda as negotiations on social and economic policy.
The past raises issues of human loss and suffering. They are difficult to deal with. It also raises the issue of legal responsibility. There is no reason for failing to deal with that.
