|
Doubts persist about Iraq's tribunal
By Luke Baker
10/20/05 -- -- 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."
© Reuters 2005.
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
