Out of 500
possible charges, prosecutors in the acclaimed “trial of the century”
have narrowed it down to 12 documented cases to be presented against the
former leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. Since October 19, 2005, the slow
progress of Saddam's first trial has descended into mayhem. The
circumstances surrounding the trial and the court proceedings have
raised serious doubts about the fairness and legitimacy of the Iraqi
Special Tribunal.
Like the Nuremberg
Trials and the Milosevic Trial, the Iraqi Special Tribunal attempts to
carry out justice against Saddam Hussein for the atrocities committed
during his reign. Unlike the previous war criminal trials conducted by
international tribunals, Saddam is facing a tribunal of his people.
Ironically, the Iraqi tribunal, funded and supported by the United
States that ousted the leader, was formed by the Iraqi government
consisting largely of Shiite and Kurd groups who had once been victims
of Saddam's oppression.
A Fair Trial
To legitimize any court trial is to grant the defendant a fair trial, following legal procedures according to law.
Established in
1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirms the
rights of everyone — "to an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law" (Article 8), "to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal" (Article 10), and "to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which
he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence" (Article 11).
International law recognizes that a fair trial must be based on
decisions made by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.
Moreover, those
rights have been enshrined in various international and regional human
rights treaties, including the Basic Principles on the Independence of
the Judiciary. Even Iraq ratified the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1971, which explicitly states in Article
14 — "everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a
competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law." Thus,
the Iraqi government is still bound by it.
First Trial of Saddam
Saddam and seven
co-defendants have been on trial for the 1982 killings of 148 Shiite
villagers in Dujail after a failed assassination attempt against the
head of Iraq. A guilty conviction could warrant a death penalty. Future
cases will likely include Saddam's Anfal Offensive that killed 180,000
Kurds in late 1980s, allegedly poison gas attack on Halabja that killed
supposedly 5,000 Kurds in 1988, suppression of Kurdish and Shiite
revolts in 1991, and invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
In the eyes of the
world, Saddam's first trial is seen, at best, as courtroom drama
entertainment and, at worst, a parody in executing judicial justice.
Since the beginning, the trial has been plagued by delays, courtroom
brawls, hunger strikes, walkouts in protest, boycotts by the defense
team, no-shows by witnesses or defendants, assassinations of two defense
lawyers, departures of numerous defense attorneys, resignation of a
chief judge, removal of another judge, installing a temporary biased
chief judge — and the trial is not over yet. Even Saddam denounces the
court as a "comedy."
Legality in Question
The mounting
illegal proceedings in the trial only affirm the standards of a kangaroo
court. The Iraqi Special Tribunal, created in 2003, appears to be
operating under its own set of rules — half-heartedly embracing
international laws while upholding some old Iraqi laws.
Laws for establishing an independent and impartial tribunal for a fair trial have been blatantly ignored:
— A
five-judge panel that consists of only Shiites and Kurds was selected
to pass judgments on defendants. Sunni, the ethnic group of the
defendants, was excluded.
— Lowering
the standard of proof, judges can now issue a guilty verdict for being
"satisfied" by the evidence instead of "convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt."
— The
Iraqi government has been involved in political manipulation of the
court, forcing Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin "for being too lenient"
to resign and appointing Raouf Abdel Rahman from Halabja, a Kurd with a
conflict of interest to Saddam, as the temporary chief judge.
Laws for ensuring safety to those involved in the case and due process for a fair trial have been breached:
— The
occupation forces, along with the Iraqi administration, are unable to
ensure security for judges, lawyers, witnesses and others who attend the
trial. In fact, about 1,100 out of 1,500 lawyers withdrew from the
defense team after the slayings of two attorneys and injuring one other
in the increasing violent and chaotic turmoil in Iraq. (Violating the
International Humanitarian Law)
— Saddam's
attorneys are denied the same rights and resources as the prosecutors
in his trial. The U.S. troops and dozens of American lawyers have been
assisting the prosecution team. In contrast, foreign attorneys from
different countries for the defense team haven’t been able to enter Iraq
to visit their clients regularly, while attorneys in Iraq have been
working without access to phones, faxes, computers, or books. Worse
still, legal notes from the defense members are subjected to American
officials' approval before they are passed on to the defendants.
[Violating the UDHR, Article 11; ICCPR, Article 14(3b)]
— Chief Judge Rahman continued
the trial for hours in one session, examining witnesses without the
required presence of the main defendants and their defense lawyers who
were either removed or walked out in protest. [Violating the ICCPR, Article 14(3d)]
In addition, the
irregular presentation of evidence by the prosecution team raises
suspicion: unseen witnesses testifying or their testimonies read in
court; silent videotapes played with read transcripts; and witnesses on
the stand claimed that they didn’t want to be witnesses.
Furthermore, the
heavy-handed approach by Chief Judge Rahman calls into question about
the legality and impartiality of his conduct: summoned defendants to be
physically dragged into court while their attorneys stayed away in a
boycott; silenced Saddam's testimony on the stand by turning off his
microphone and throwing the press out; and continued the trial with court-appointed attorneys to replace defendants’ chosen lawyers who walked out in protest for a month.
Legitimacy in Question
To legitimize any
court is to ensure independent establishment with impartial judges to
conduct a fair trial according to law. The Iraqi Special Tribunal has
raised doubts about its legitimacy for the following reasons:
— It is the product of an illegal U.S.-led invasion.
— The U.S. has been the driving force behind the tribunal and the trial by providing logistical and financial assistance.
— Along
with the United Nations, Amnesty International declared: "The statute
of the Iraqi Special Tribunal currently in place is not consistent with
international law."
Saddam, charged
with crimes against humanity, should be held in an international
tribunal with experienced judges and prosecutors in a transparent trial
with adequate due process. From the outset of the trial, the defendants
and their lawyers accused the tribunal as illegitimate. It's no wonder
that Saddam and other defendants rebelled with outbursts, insults,
tirades, walkouts, hunger strikes, and other behaviors in court.
Conclusion
(First published on UniOrb.com, May 1, 2006)