Europe and Central Asia Summary of Amnesty International’s Concerns in the Region, January-June 2007 145 form part of the work of the Historical Enquiries Team.” key role that the state itself had played in the conflict. JCHR r eport on the UK government’s response to the ECtHR judgments Asylum-seekers and refugees (update to AI Index: EUR 01/001/2007) In June, the JCHR published a report concluding that, in respect of cases involving the investigation of the use of lethal force by security forces in Northern Ireland, there had been serious delays in the implementation of a series of judgments against the UK by the ECtHR. The JCHR considered the cases of Jordan, McKerr, Finucane, Kelly and others, Shanaghan, and McShane (see above). It noted with concern that, according to statistics provided by the UK government, and even taking into account the differences between the coroners systems in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales, in 2005 the average time taken to conclude a coroner’s inquest was 23 weeks in England and Wales but approximately 105 weeks in Northern Ireland. UK government announces the establishment of a panel on dealing with the legacy of the past In June, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced the establishment of “an independent consultative group to seek a consensus across the community in Northern Ireland on the best way deal with the legacy of the past.” Concern was widespread that that none of the individuals making up the panel appeared to have any experience of human rights, or of transitional justice issues. In addition, there was no involvement on the part of victims’ representatives. Concern was also expressed at the use of this initiative to undermine inquiries and investigations into killings in disputed circumstances, especially those raising allegations of state collusion. In particular, in announcing the initiative the UK government had made no reference to the Amnesty International Policy on detention following a dispute over the age of an asylum-seeker In January, the then Home Secretary admitted that the government had operated an “unlawful” policy in respect of the detention of unaccompanied asylumseeking children whose claim to be under 18 years of age was disputed by the immigration services. Before a change of policy in November 2005 the government’s policy had, in certain circumstances, allowed unaccompanied asylum-seeking children whose age was disputed to be detained alongside adults in Immigration Removal Centres (see AI Index: EUR 45/015/2005). Some unaccompanied children who were seeking compensation from the government for their unlawful detention had reportedly suffered psychological damage after being held with adults in inappropriate conditions. JCHR report on the treatment of asylumseekers In March, the JCHR published a report on the treatment of asylum-seekers. It concluded that “by refusing permission for asylum seekers to work and operating a system of support which results in widespread destitution, the Government’s treatment of asylum seekers in a number of cases reaches the Article 3 ECHR threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment”. The JCHR expressed concern about the use of fast-track detention, and about detention of vulnerable people, including survivors of torture, pregnant women and those with serious mental and physical health problems. In respect of the detention of child asylumseekers, the JCHR found that the “process AI Index: EUR 01/010/2007