AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S call on Thursday for a judicial review of the cases of the Grenada 17 - the persons convicted for their alleged role in the death of Maurice Bishop and his colleagues in October 1983 - is a poignant reminder that the implosion that led to the deaths should not only be analysed from the geo-political perspective as is often done, but also in terms of the human tragedy.It was a more than a tragedy that Bishop, his Cabinet colleagues, union leaders and civilians were executed subsequent to an internal party dispute; that people leapt over 40-ft walls breaking bones as they scampered to safety from soldiers who had turned their guns on them, and that 20 years later few of the affected families got any bodies to bury and so experience some form of closure.
It would also be a tragedy if, among the persons incarcerated for their alleged involvement in those cataclysmic events, there are persons who have been declared guilty by association or whose punishment far exceeds the extent of their participation.
In its statement from London last week, Amnesty repeated a charge often made by supporters of those incarcerated as well as by legal analysts, that the trial of the 17 violated international standards. The Amnesty report listed allegations of irregularities in jury selection, a denial of a competent and independent tribunal, lack of legal representation and allowing what it described as questionable evidence. Piers Bannister, a researcher with the international human rights watch-dog agency who is not unfamiliar to the Jamaican public, has suggested that a retrial be done in the name of justice.
We recognise too that there is always the danger and temptation of various players and people distant from catastrophic events to rewrite history with a disinterest that does an injustice to the memory of those most affected.
So while they debate the finer points of international law, the Grenadian people will have to settle on the difficult question of "whose sense of justice should be served or given priority."
The Grenada 17 (since reduced by one with Phyllis Coard being allowed to come to Jamaica for medical treatment) have accepted moral responsibility for the climate that led to the collapse and violence at Fort Rupert on October 19, 1983. For many Grenadians, that is not enough. Their contention is that the 17 played a major role in the behind the scenes actions that eventually led to the deaths of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. Justice for them then, cannot be only about the interests of Messrs Coard, Austin, Strachan et al.
The Amnesty statement should also throw into sharp focus the ripple effects that a singular action or series of actions cause long after the main players have left the stage.
The psyche of the people of that southern Caribbean island remains deeply scarred by an ugly family quarrel. Clear attempts are being made to reopen the debates and to discuss the positives and negatives of the revolution and how it self-destructed. It is a necessary step in the process of healing.
We in Jamaica are not that far removed from the Grenadian tragedy either emotionally or physically. Jamaicans were there before and after the revolution as well as being major players at the time of the United States-led invasion. For Grenada's trauma is an indelible page in Caribbean history.
