As the Dujail case fails to conclude on schedule, Doaa El-Bey reviews recent developments in the trials of Saddam Hussein Following a brief closed session Monday, Jaafar Al-Mussawi, lead prosecutor in the Saddam Hussein Dujail trial, declared that he expects a verdict in the case in three weeks. A verdict had been due 16 October. Mussawi set 5 November as a potential date for another closed session but did not confirm that a verdict would be read then. The court examining the case needed more time, he said. The Dujail trial started 19 October last year. Meanwhile, Saddam's Anfal trial is still on. Sabah Al-Mokhtar, president of the Arab Lawyers Association, confirmed that nobody knows the reason for the delay. Some believe that the delay is to give the Iraqi government time to consult US authorities on what should be done. "The government is in a difficult situation. No judge will be able to find Saddam not guilty. But from the legal point of view, the evidence submitted is insufficient to be able to find him guilty. Thus, there is a possibility that the verdict will not be announced 5 November," Mokhtar said. Mokhtar added that the government would likely delay the verdict as long as possible, on the one hand, and swiftly enforce it when it comes -- including the possible execution of Saddam Hussein -- on the other, in order to leave little time for an appeal. Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants, including Hussein's half brother, the former vice president and the former secret police chief, are accused of ordering the killing of 148 Shias after a failed assassination attempt on President Hussein in 1982. Meanwhile, the Anfal trial reconvened Tuesday, just one day after the court failed to produce a verdict in the Dujail case. Hussein is facing trial over genocide charges in connection with an alleged government crackdown on Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s. An estimated 120,000 to 180,000 Kurds are alleged to have died between 1987 and 1988. The opening of the Anfal trial before the conclusion of the Dujail trial raised a number of questions, namely: Is it proper that a person be tried in two separate cases at the same time, especially when it is widely expected that a capital sentence will be passed in both cases? What will happen if Hussein is sentenced to death in the Dujail trial? Will he still be tried in the Anfal case, or could he appeal the Dujail sentence while being tried in the Anfal case? Mokhtar believes the trials are conducted to satisfy the two components of the present regime: "The first trial was conducted to satisfy the Shias and the second to satisfy the Kurds." Observers of the two cases cannot help but notice similarities in the conduct of both trials. In the Dujail case, Rauf Abdel Rahman, a hardliner who resorted to aggressive means to control the outbursts of Saddam and his half-brother, replaced Judge Rizkar Amin, who gave Saddam the chance to speak. In the Anfal case, Judge Mohammed Al-Uraibi, who switched off Saddam's microphone to prevent him from speaking, replaced Abdullah Al-Amiri, who refused to call Saddam a dictator. "Precisely that is why both trials are criticised. This fact discredited both trials and proved that the government is interfering. That is why various human rights organisations feel embarrassed with the trial," Mokhtar said. Both trials have witnessed raucous sessions with outbursts that ended up in the expulsion of Saddam or some co-defendants from court. In other instances, presiding judges have expelled defence lawyers replacing them with court- appointed ones. "Under international law you can have trial in absentia. But in this case it is illegal. Also appointing lawyers despite the objection of the accused is unlawful," notes Mokhtar. In both trials the court is widely regarded as illegal because in violation of the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations occupying forces set it up. Under the general human rights law and standards of international due process, defendants and their lawyers should have advance access to all details of the prosecution's case in order to prepare a defence. In the Dujail and Anfal trials, the accused and defence counsel were deprived of that right. At a minimum the accused should have unrestricted and confidential access to defence lawyers of their own choosing. This has also been denied in both trials. Meanwhile, though imprisoned for almost 3 years, Saddam Hussein continues to address Iraq as president. He wrote a letter addressing his people not to forget their goal to liberate their country from the invaders and their followers and warned them from settling of accounts outside this goal. In the letter recently made public by his lawyers, Hussein insists on the importance of the unity of Iraq: "We are a united and undivided people ... made up of Arabs, Kurds and various religions and communities." The letter, written to commemorate the holy month of Ramadan, reminded the Iraqi people not to forget their goal of liberating their country from invading forces and their followers and warned against the settling of accounts outside of this goal. Although Iraqi law states that hanging is the mode of execution in criminal cases, Saddam has said that if convicted and a death sentence passed he wishes to die by a bullet as befits a military man and commander in chief of the Iraqi army. "Saddam is behaving as the head of state, dealing with court members as his subjects. He has not lost his temper or his composure during the Anfal trail. I think the trial has afforded Saddam all credit and given the government and the US none at all," Mokhtar concluded. In a separate development, some 500 tribal leaders in the province of Kirkuk in northern Iraq met in a show of unity in the face of the US occupation. They held up portraits of Saddam, declared him the legitimate president and called for his release.
