Part two examines human rights violations protected by the ECHR 1950. It is not unreasonable to suggest that HMG may have been, during the NI Conflict, potentially culpable and held responsible for violations of ECHR 1950 Articles. Thereafter, considering and questioning HMG’s reliance on Article 15 ECHR 1950 affording a right to derogate from its ECHR 1950, excepting Articles 2, 3 and 7 ECHR 1950, by virtue of a public emergency? A range of different and alternative political and security options and choices were available to HMG? From the conquest of Ireland and political subrogation, management, manipulation of Irish human geography; land acquisitions, confiscations, plantations and settlements; post Act of Union 1800 discrimination against the native Roman Catholics. The unconscionable litany of landlord and tenant legislation? Resonating deep into the native Irish consciousness, producing resentment, recriminations, protests, riots, insurrections, rebellions and civil war? Underpinning the present day inconclusive political struggle? Before partition, the people were very optimist to the long-awaited home rule legislation?The politically negligent irresponsible semi-apartheid State of N I? HMG, turning a “blind eye” to the social deprivation, social exclusion, poverty, unemployment, homelessness and housing conditions, unfit for human habitation / criminalisation and emigration? A hostile, prejudice, toxic environment for NI R C British Subjects? Resulting in rebellion, civil rights protests, the “Battle of the Bogside” all met with a very heavy-handed RUC / police violence? A return to public law and order enforcement, this time via the British Army and the RUC; together with Loyalist sectarian violence against Roman Catholics? Resulting in Irish Republican political violence. HMG’s responding with internment without trial, but without bedding down a political settlement, in “real time”? The killing of fourteen unarmed civil rights protesters on “Bloody Sunday” in Derry 1972; and the killings in “Ballymurphy,” Belfast by the British Paratroopers? The decision to “shoot dead “street protesting petrol bombers.? Apart from loss of life, amounted to the issuing of an edict from all high? There were no probative independent investigations or inquiries?The word of the security services was gospel? The British Paratrooper killings, had been deliberately suppressed for fifty years? HMG polices of “shoot to kill”; collusion with loyalist paramilitaries; the operation of covert forensic science laboratories, the use of informers to remove and return firearms and explosive devices, from paramilitary hides, loss of life and the break in the chain of evidence / disclosure consequences; Amounting to HMG bad faith and security forces bad conduct and abuse of process? Simultaneous dual emergency provisions I.E., internment without trial and emergency scheduled criminal offences / Special Diplock Courts. 90 % of those charged with these criminal offences were not charged with membership of a proscribed organisation? Despite being charged with a criminal offence were denied access to a solicitor / appropriate adult; and or a fair trial, in a properly constituted criminal court with a judge and jury?An HMG Policy of “Criminalisation,”? In response to a political set of hostile conditions and circumstances, created and exacerbated by HMG’s decisions, actions and omissions, which only served to protract theAnglo-Irish NI conflict 1968-1998?