An inquiry has opened into the murder of Robert Hamill (25) by a loyalist mob in Co Armagh eight years ago.
The father of three was kicked to death on April 26th, 1997, and died of his injuries the following month. It is alleged that armed RUC officers in a police Land Rover near the scene could have acted to prevent his killing.
An inquiry to establish the facts of the case was set up last November by then Northern secretary Paul Murphy following a recommendation by retired Canadian Supreme Court judge Peter Cory.
Opening proceedings in Craigavon yesterday, chairman Sir Edwin Jowett announced the inquiry's terms.
These are to inquire into the death of Mr Hamill with a view to "determining whether any wrongful act or omission by or within the Royal Ulster Constabulary facilitated his death or obstructed the investigation of it or whether attempts were made to do so; whether any such act or omission was intentional or negligent; whether the investigation of his death was carried out with due diligence; and to make recommendations".
More than 100 witnesses are expected to give evidence when the hearing begins in Belfast in November.
Sir Edwin said the terms appeared to raise core issues, including could and should the RUC have done more to avert Mr Hamill's death by way of better policing on the night of April 26th-27th, 1997. If so, was the failure to make that provision negligent or deliberate? Could and should the RUC officers at the scene of the attack have done anything, or refrained from doing something so as to prevent his death? If so, was the act or omission negligent or deliberate?
Could and should RUC officers at the scene have done more to identify and facilitate the prosecution of perpetrators? If so, was the omission negligent or deliberate?
Did any RUC officer attempt to obstruct the investigation of the death of Mr Hamill? If so, was any such obstruction successful?
Could and should the RUC have done more to investigate the death and any attempted obstruction into the investigation itself? If so, was the omission negligent or deliberate? What recommendations should be made?
In the courtroom were legal teams, observers from rights watchdogs, the Committee on Administration of Justice (CAJ) and British-Irish Rights Watch, and from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Sir Edwin is joined by the Rev Baroness Richardson, a former moderator of the Free Churches' Council of England and Wales, and Sir John Evans, formerly chief constable of Devon and Cornwall. The chairman appealed to those with relevant information to make it known, and encouraged those with recommendations on lines of inquiry to come forward.
"Witnesses who give evidence to this inquiry will not be obliged, if they choose not to - and, though they may receive advice about it, the decision must be theirs - to answer any question the answer to which might incriminate them in respect of any criminal or police disciplinary offence of which they have not been convicted."
However, speaking after proceedings were adjourned, Barra McGrory, for the Hamill family, said he was not unduly concerned by inclusion of such a statement "at this stage".
Maggie O'Connor, for the CAJ, and Jane Winter, for British-Irish Rights Watch, sought to make submissions. Both were encouraged to make formal written submissions.
Speaking outside the courthouse, Diane Hamill appealed for witnesses to come forward. She singled out members of the former RUC. "Examine your consciences. Then do the right thing," she said.