The families of those who died or were injured in the Bloody Sunday shootings had a "fundamental need to know" the names of the soldiers who opened fire, the High Court in London was told yesterday. There was no ulterior or sinister motive for revenge, said Lord Gifford QC, appearing for the family of James Wray, one of the victims.
The Wray family simply wanted to know "who has unjustifiably caused the death of their relative" as part of the "healing process".
The QC was among lawyers opposing 17 soldiers, mostly from the Parachute Regiment, who are seeking a ruling that the new Bloody Sunday Inquiry is "unreasonably and unlawfully" requiring them to reveal their names.
Lawyers for the soldiers, mostly retired, and the Ministry of Defence argued that lifting the cloak of anonymity posed a threat to their "fundamental right to life".
The international tribunal, chaired by Lord Saville, decided in May they cannot remain anonymous, unless they can show special reasons, when they give evidence at hearings due to begin next September.
Yesterday - the third day of the hearing - Mr Arthur Harvey QC, appearing for several of the families of those killed and injured, warned that it was entirely "undesirable" that the ghost of the unsuccessful Widgery investigation, at which soldiers were allowed anonymity, should be allowed to "walk the corridors" of the Saville Inquiry.
Widgery had left "a festering wound" which could now only be healed by a full and open inquiry. The ability of the new Bloody Sunday Inquiry to command public confidence would be "crippled" if it was not entitled to make fresh decisions.
He said the names of many of the soldiers who fired shots on Sunday, January 30th, 1972, were already widely known and there was no evidence they had been targeted.
Mr Ian Burnett QC, appearing for the Ministry of Defence, said the tribunal was acting "without common sense and without common humanity".
Its decision was contrary to a security services assessment that troops who opened fire on Bloody Sunday were in the top category of those facing threats of reprisal attacks from republican terrorist groups.
But yesterday Mr Harvey rejected Mr Burnett's analysis and said it was the "common fare of our daily lives in Northern Ireland" that the military, police officers and civilians gave evidence in terrorist-related cases without ever requiring anonymity.
Even well known trials involving British soldiers had taken place with all names revealed and freely given, and with no evidence of revenge attacks.
Top of the list of the threat assessment were senior officers who had participated in Bloody Sunday and knew their names were widely known, yet felt able to lead their lives "unencumbered by the fear of reprisals".
Lord Gifford told the court: "The more transparent the tribunal can be, the safer will be the climate for everyone, including the soldiers themselves."
Even in the "horrific" event of armed conflict returning, it would be possible to protect the soldiers who had been named "in exactly the same way as the soldiers whose identities were already known, and the way other public figures had been protected over many years".
The hearing is expected to conclude today, with a judgment to follow later in the week.