Doubts persist about Iraq’s tribunal

By Luke Baker

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Saddam Hussein’s trial lasted only a
few hours before being adjourned, but it was long enough for
international observers to get a taste — and overall they were
left unconvinced about the credibility of Iraq’s tribunal.

While praising the efforts of the chief judge, a Kurd with
a wry smile and a pleasant manner, legal experts said they were
uneasy about how parts of the process unfolded and uncertain
whether it would ultimately be seen to be fair and efficient.

Several said the most positive aspect of the trial for
crimes against humanity was that it was quickly adjourned, an
indication of the extent of their concerns.

“We have our fair trial reservations,” said Miranda
Sissons, a senior associate with the International Center for
Transitional Justice, which offers help to countries dealing
with past abuses. Sissons was present in court on Wednesday.

“(The) adjournment gives the Iraqi tribunal the opportunity
to address head-on concerns about its ability to conduct a fair
trial under independent and legitimate auspices.”

The three or so hours that Saddam and seven others spent in
court were mostly taken up with the defendants identifying
themselves, giving Saddam a chance to showboat about still
being president, before the prosecution and defense made
remarks.

One of the biggest concerns observers raised was that the
chief prosecutor, in his opening statement, was permitted to
ramble for 15 minutes, making a sweep of allegations seemingly
unrelated to the case at hand. The defense was aghast.

“I was troubled to see the prosecutor make what was
effectively a lengthy, pretty political statement that wasn’t
necessarily legally grounded,” said Richard Dicker, director of
Human Rights Watch’s international justice program.

“It didn’t appear that the defense lawyers, the accused,
the prosecutor and the judge were all operating from the same
playbook in terms of the rules of the session,” he told
Reuters.

“There was this sense of an ‘anything goes’ process, and I
wasn’t at all encouraged by that.”

At the same time, Dicker and others praised efforts by the
judge, Rizgar Mohammed Amin, to show fairness and respect to
the defendants, and for being patient.

Harangued by Saddam, the gray-haired Amin, seated on a
raised dais, smiled and was calm.

“The judge had a light touch and bent over backwards to be
polite and respectful,” said British lawyer Wesley Gryk, who
monitored the proceedings for rights group Amnesty
International.

“The prosecutor was more politicized, and there are some
concerns about that.”

SOME FEARS ALLAYED

Ahead of the court date, promised since virtually the day
Saddam was captured in December 2003, commentators had
expressed worries about the accused’s ability to mount a
defense, about the burden of proof and the use of the death
penalty.

They also raised the fear that unless it was scrupulously
transparent, the tribunal, set up by U.S. authorities during
the U.S. occupation, would be seen as little more than a forum
for “victor’s justice” and open to political interference.

Some of those concerns were set aside after day one — the
adjournment, for example, ensures the defense will have more
time to prepare — but several other problems are written into
the tribunal’s statutes and will not be changed.

For human rights groups, the fact the death penalty can be
imposed and cannot be commuted is unacceptable, and stands in
stark contrast to the standards of most international courts.

Proof must also be shown only to the “satisfaction” of the
panel of five judges, not “beyond reasonable doubt.” And
according to tribunal rules, any sentence, including death,
must be carried out within 30 days of all appeals being
exhausted.

In an effort to show it can handle high-profile cases such
as Saddam being tried for crimes against humanity — and
genocide and war crimes in the future — the tribunal and its
American advisers have created a hybrid judicial structure.

They have taken elements of international courts, like that
in The Hague, and built them on top of Iraq’s criminal codes,
creating a potentially strong structure but with rough edges.
Dicker would have preferred more international elements.

“A fully internationalized structure would have maximized
the chances for a fair and efficient trial, and I say that with
all respect for the Iraqi judges,” he said.

“The new Iraqi statutes go some way further than Iraqi law
in granting rights to the accused … but they are still deeply
flawed. There are enormous questions to be asked.”

For many Iraqis, however, even if Wednesday’s proceedings
didn’t look like most Iraqi trials, there was huge relief at
seeing their former tormentor in court, and in the end that may
go the furthest to ensuring the success of the tribunal.

“Despite shortcomings, it was a momentous day for Iraqis,”
said Dicker. “It sends a signal that the days of unlimited
impunity for these types of crimes may be winding down.”