In an open letter to The Economist, Curtis Doebbler reveals the distance between fact and bias in Western reporting of the trial of Saddam Hussein Dear Sirs, Your article about "Saddam Hussein's trial" entitled "Undignified, but not a farce" was grossly misinformed and inaccurate. You appear unaware that last November, after being appointed by US-appointed Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) administrator Amir Bakri dismissed Naim Al-Egaili, the president of the court, in what was branded as a change in "political control" of the IST from Ahmed and Salem Chalabi to Allawi. You also do not report that another, unnamed judge resigned because of a conflict of interest, also in November 2005. Finally, you appear unaware that on 10 February 2006, Kurdish media reported that yet another judge on the court, 60-year-old Ali Hussein Al-Shimmiri, had died on 9 February 2006 after suffering a stroke apparently resulting from an altercation with new chief Judge Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman. With the death of judge Ali Hussein Al-Shimmiri, at least four and perhaps all of the five judgesnot merely threewho were on the original court, are no longer there. Moreover, Judge Abdel-Rahman was not even a member of the IST until he was appointed the new chief judge, bypassing all the other judges on the court and despite the fact that he did not hear any of the evidence in the first eight trial sittings that he did not attend. You also conveniently do not report that Judge Abdel-Rahman is from Halabja, one of the cities in which it is alleged that the defendants committed crimes against multiple victims and where it can be assumed that he is a relative or friend of some of the alleged victims. You also refrain from reporting that he was arrested, convicted and imprisoned by the government of President Saddam Hussein. You do state that former presiding Judge Rizgar Amin resigned, but you fail to mention that he had been pressured into resigning by, among others, Ali Al-Adeeb, a senior Shia official in Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari's party and member of the interim legislature, who declared that "the chief judge should be changed and replaced by someone who is strict and courageous." Moreover, Judge Amin was then pressured to rescind his resignation and "sources close to the chief judge" told Reuters 15 January 2006 that "he's under a lot of pressure; the whole court is under political pressure." You also conveniently omit reports that the next chief judge, Judge Saeed Al-Hammash, was also forced to step down because of political pressure. This time the pressure came from Ali Faisal, head of the de-Baathification Commission, which is a creation of the US-led occupying powers. As to the lawyers, you state that the defence team "is refusing to return to the courtroom." That is false. Even on 29 January we stated unambiguously that we would attend any trial that abides by the requirements of the human right to a fair trial and provided security for all those involved. Unfortunately, the trial before the IST violates almost every element of a fair trial and security continues to be lacking. The elements of a fair trial can be found in a treaty called the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which both Iraq and the United States are state parties. Article 14 of that treaty requires several basic rights be adhered to in all circumstances and for all defendants. This article starts by declaring that everyone has a right to a fair and public hearing before a "competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law." The IST is not competent because it was established illegally both as a result of an illegal invasion of Iraq and in violation of international humanitarian law that prohibits an occupier from changing the laws or the judiciary of a country under occupation. When the IST was established in December 2003 there was no doubt that Iraq was under US occupation. Any cosmetic alterations in the IST in an attempt to claim it is now an Iraqi entity are purely illusory. The IST remains under the strictest control of the United States. This US controlwhich is clearly evident to both Iraqis and journalists in Iraq, but conveniently not shown on TVis crystal clear. American soldiers and lawyers are everywhere in the courthouse. Judges cannot even make decisions without the approval of their American puppet-masters. The way that all the judges were replaced is an indication of other political interferences that make the court dependent on third parties. The lack of impartiality of the judges is illustrated by the bias expressed first by investigating judge, now court spokesman, Raed Ruhi, who declared the defendants guilty, and then by Judge Abdel-Rahman's past which makes him an avowed enemy of the defendants. Other judges' identities and backgrounds are not even known, which is in and of itself evidence that the IST lacks impartiality. Another right, the presumption of innocence, is violated when not only judges, as already indicated, but also the US-supported president of Iraq states that President Saddam Hussein is guilty and should be executed. The ICCPR says everyone must be informed of charges promptly and in sufficient detail; have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence; be tried without delay; be able to choose his own lawyer; and be able to examine and call witnesses, among other rights. President Hussein was held for almost two years before he was charged, with no opportunity to meet his lawyers, nor the ability to petition against the legality of his arrest. In July 2004, he was ridiculed on TV, but not given details of any charges brought against him. Investigating Judge Ruhi did not even know what law applied. Further, President Hussein was not even able to meet his most senior lawyers until after the trial had started, and then only for brief periods of time. Because of continuing insecurity in Iraq neither defence counsel nor investigators can visit any of the sites of the alleged crimes or seek out witnesses. When defence counsel claimed that their lives were threatened by Iraqi government related hit squadswhich are now admitted to existthis was dismissed as fantasy. After two defence lawyers were killed and one seriously injured still no investigation has been undertaken and no proper security arrangements have been put in place. This combined with the very significant financial handicap under which defence counsel must try to function has created a total lack of time and facilities for preparing a defence. The trial itself started 19 October 2005. President Hussein was arrested 13 December 2003, almost two years before, and was held incommunicado. This is very arguably an undue delay. The president was denied access to any lawyer, and then only allowed to see a single lawyer who was approved by the court, but not others he had asked to see. Now, under chief Judge Abdel-Rahman, the president is again being denied access to his lawyers as the court or US authorities have approved no request to visit the president since 29 January and as of 19 February. Regardless of what Judge Abdel-Rahman thinks of the defence lawyers, they are still the lawyers the president chose and he still has the right to meet with them. The long list of violations of the human right to fair trial also includes the complete absence of an opportunity for any defendant to call witnesses because the defence has no way of investigating any of the alleged crimes. Without proper security and resources that are adequate enough to assist them in finding witnesses, the right of defendants to call witnesses is completely illusory. Numerous international tribunals have also held that a fair trial must ensure equality of arms between the parties. This means the defence and prosecution must be in relatively the same position to make their arguments. This is not the case. While the US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars making their case, and perhaps even manufacturing evidence where none could be found, defence lawyerslike myselfpay their own expenses and have no resources at all for investigations, finding witnesses, reviewing evidence, doing complex legal research, or even travelling to Iraq. Several trips to Iraq had to be cancelled when the US government demanded lawyers pay $6000 to travel from the airport to the Green Zone. The inequality between prosecution resources and defence resources is enough alone to bias the case. This is in stark comparison to the international criminal tribunals and court under UN auspices, which provides defence counsel with much needed resources to ensure a fair trial. The United States seems more worried about saving its money to fund weapons to kill more Iraqis than spending it on ensuring justice in Iraq. For defence counsel to criticise these violations of human rights is perhaps natural and their professional responsibility, but in this case calls have also been made from Amnesty International, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and several other UN officials, along with former and current prosecutors at the ad hoc Hague criminal tribunals and many more. Even the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has recently informed the US and Iraqi governments that at least 10 elements of the right to fair trial are currently being violated. How then can The Economist conclude otherwise? While justice is being violated in broad daylight by Judge Abdel-Rahman and his American puppeteers, The Economist seems to be turning a blind-eye by innocently declaring that the current court "has by and large adhered to international standards of due process", that suspicions are "so far unwarranted ... that this Iraqi court is in fact an American tribunal dispensing victors' justice," and that "it is still possible that a fair trial" will take place. Indulgence in such fantasies amounts to complicity with this atrocity against justice. Sincerely, Dr Curtis F J Doebbler Professor of law, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine Co-defence counsel to President Saddam Hussein
