|
by Richard Dicker
The imminent execution of Saddam Hussein and two other
former Iraqi officials marks a further step away from respect for human
rights and the rule of law in a deeply polarised and violent Iraq. For
15 years Human Rights Watch and other organisations documented rights
violations committed by the former government. There is no question that
Saddam and his cohort were responsible for horrific practices. But by
ratifying the execution order the tribunal's appeals chamber has
compounded the serious errors committed at trial and further undermined
the credibility of the process.
The trial judgment was not finished when the verdict and
sentence were announced on November 5. The record only became available
to defence lawyers on November 22. According to the tribunal's statute,
the defence attorneys had to file their appeals on December 5, which
gave them less than two weeks to respond to the 300-page trial decision.
The appeals chamber never held a hearing to consider the legal arguments
presented as allowed by Iraqi law. It defies belief that the appeals
chamber could fairly review a 300-page decision together with written
submissions by the defence and consider all the relevant issues in less
than three weeks.
This follows a trial whose serious flaws rendered the
verdict unsound. The trial was undermined from the start by persistent
political interference from the Iraqi government. Furthermore, the
rights of the defendants were systematically denied by failures to
disclose key evidence to the defence. There were also serious violations
of the defendants' rights to confront witnesses testifying against them.
Most disturbing were the frequent lapses of judicial demeanour by the
trial's second presiding judge. In January, the first chief judge
resigned in protest over the public criticism of his trial management
practices by leading officials.
These failures contrast with the seriousness of the cases
before the tribunal. For the first time since the postwar Nuremberg
trials, almost the entire leadership of a repressive government faced
trial for gross human rights violations. It offered the chance to create
a historical record of some of the regime's unspeakable rights
violations and to begin the process of accounting for the policies and
decisions that gave rise to them. Trials conforming to international
standards of fairness would have been more likely to ventilate and
verify the historical facts, contribute to the public recognition of the
experiences of victims, and set a more stable foundation for democratic
accountability. Instead, unlike the Nuremberg trials, the proceedings
have fallen far short of creating the reference point that could clarify
for Iraqis what happened and why.
The death sentence is a further step away from respect
for human rights. The death penalty, regardless of the crimes involved,
is tantamount to cruel and inhuman punishment. For an Iraq where, one
hopes, human rights and the rule of law will one day be respected,
Saddam's punishment is an important benchmark. The execution order
signals the shallowness of the government's commitment to basic human
rights in meting out punishment.
The momentary elation over Saddam's demise among those
who suffered under his regime will not outweigh or outlast the loss of a
unique opportunity to establish a clear record of his regime's
criminality. The flawed trial and a fast-track execution send a clear
signal that political interference is still very much a feature of the
judicial process in the new Iraq.
Richard Dicker is the international justice director of
Human Rights Watch
Return
to Table of Contents |