IT would seem obvious that when designing new structures to address the complex legacy of three decades of violence, the needs of victims should be the primary consideration.
Yet that was plainly not the case when the British government published legislation this week aiming to draw a line under Troubles investigations.
The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, if it becomes law, will offer an effective amnesty for conflict-related killings in return for information about circumstances of deaths.
While not the blanket statute of limitations proposed to universal condemnation last year, it will guarantee immunity from prosecution to anyone deemed to have co-operated with a new independent body.
The legislation would also close down future inquests, civil actions and Police Ombudsman investigations, despite these often being the only avenue for families to elicit answers, the recent hearings into the Ballymurphy massacre being a prime example.
Removing the possibility of securing justice, however remote that may be, will undoubtedly be a crushing blow to many victims.
Operation Kenova, examining the activities of the British army agent known as Stakeknife, has shown it is possible to design a mechanism to effectively investigate historical killings within a criminal justice framework.
While the government says its proposals will provide more information than ever before about the circumstances of a loved one's death, many questions arise about how it will work in practice.
It is easy to imagine that people implicated in appalling crimes 50 years ago will be reluctant to come forward, safe in the knowledge that a prosecution is highly unlikely.
There are also concerns about how robust the requirement for disclosure will be and how the legislation can possibly comply with human rights obligations. Court challenges are inevitable.
On one level it appears remarkable that the views of victims and survivors were not central to the process.
But it is clear to anyone following the debate that the government's approach has been dictated by political pressure to protect ex-soldiers from prosecution.
Foreign affairs minister Simon Coveney last night added his voice to the criticism, saying there were "serious concerns" about some provisions in the bill.
He added that they had strongly urged the British government to find an agreed way forward if lasting progress is to be achieved.
It is not too late to change course and seek consensus on a system that prioritises victims over perpetrators. The thousands who continue to bear the burden of terrible loss deserve nothing less.
