Counsel to the Bloody Sunday inquiry, Mr Christopher Clarke QC, yesterday pledged the inquiry's independence and impartiality, declaring that ". . . it takes the side of no one, however powerful or influential they may be".
In an opening presentation to the inquiry's main hearings in a crowded Guildhall chamber in Derry, he warned that the inquiry would, if necessary, use its considerable powers to require the attendance of witnesses. Non-compliance with its orders would amount to an interference with the course of justice, and, therefore, a contempt.
Earlier, the chairman of the tribunal of inquiry, Lord Saville, stressed that he and his two colleagues, Sir Edward Somers from New Zealand and Mr William Hoyt from Canada, had not yet formed any view on any of the controversial matters involved, and they would not do so until all the evidence had been heard.
Mr Clarke's presentation was just that - a presentation only, the chairman said. It would enable the public to see what had been done to date, and would set the scene for what would follow.
Counsel for the tribunal then began a wide-ranging review of the historical background to Bloody Sunday and of the various categories of evidence which would be presented. His presentation is expected to continue for several weeks.
Mr Clarke said that on Sunday, January 30th, 1972, "13 identified people are known to have died and a similar number to have been wounded, probably in the course of no more than 30 minutes on the streets of this city not far from where I now stand.
"Several of them were teenagers. It seems clear that most, if not all of the casualties, were the result of army gunfire."
Mr Clarke said that what had happened on Bloody Sunday had affected the lives of many more people than those immediately involved. The public controversy over the shootings had intensified after Lord Widgery's report was published on April 9th, 1972.
The report had caused further offence and resentment, which had continued to this day, and anger over Bloody Sunday was said to have driven many young men into the IRA.
What had happened, whatever the truth of the matter, was a tragedy, "the pain of which has endured despite the passage of years and was and remains a matter of serious concern".
Counsel outlined the conflict between the opposing versions of what had happened. On the one hand, what occurred was depicted as an engagement in which the army, in the course of an arrest operation, was fired on and fired back at identified gunmen and bombers. On the other hand it was characterised as a massacre of innocent individuals.
The tribunal's task, he continued, was to try to discover, so far as was humanly possible and with the means available to it, the truth - not the truth as people saw it or would like it to be, but the truth, pure and simple, "however complex, painful or unacceptable to whomsoever that truth may be".
"So difficult a task, embarked upon after so long an interval, is undoubtedly daunting," he said. There were some who had chosen to regard the task of the inquiry as impossible. It was not so, but its ability to get at the truth depended on the extent and quality of the evidence available to it, and the assistance that was provided to it.
He noted that, in the interim, some witnesses had died and the recollection of others had grown dim. Some saw these past events "through the distorting prism of guilt or anger, prejudice or predisposition".
But this tribunal had major advantages over the previous one. There was a huge amount of evidence available to it, "massively more" than was available to Lord Widgery. It had also much more freedom in terms of time.