The second trial against Saddam Hussein and co-defendants opened this week with no indication that due process violations characterising the first are being avoided Defendants in the new trial of the Iraqi Higher Criminal Court -- formerly the Iraqi Special Tribunal -- insisted Tuesday that the Iraqi military attacked only Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels when it launched its "Anfal" campaign in the late-1980s. Saddam and six co-defendants are charged with genocide over the 1987-1988 Operation Anfal, in which troops swept across parts of northern Iraq, destroying Kurdish villages. The crackdown was aimed at crushing Kurdish militias and clearing all Kurds from the northern region along the border with Iran. Saddam's regime accused the Kurds of helping Iran in its war with Iraq. Estimates of the death toll vary widely, but usually fall between 50,000 and 180,000. The Anfal court this week heard a Kurdish survivor of the campaign testify that his village was bombed with chemical weapons. A defence lawyer accused him of being coached in his testimony, a charge repeated by Saddam, who asked: "Who told you to say these things?" Along with Saddam, six co-defendants are on trial in the case. Among them is Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan Al-Majid, who led the Anfal campaign. Notorious for the alleged use of poison gas against Kurds, he was dubbed "Chemical Ali". Like Saddam, Majid faces charges of genocide. The other five defendants are charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes. Saddam sat silently while two of his co- defendants insisted Anfal was targeted at Iranian troops and allied Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq at a time when Iraq and Iran were locked in a bloody war. They claimed their goal was to fight an armed and organised army, and that civilians had been brought to safety before Iraqi military attacks were launched. On Monday, the first day of the trial, both Saddam and Majid refused to enter a plea, the judge ordering that a plea of "innocent" be entered in their respective records. All other defendants pleaded innocent. Earlier Saddam clashed with the presiding judge when asked to identify himself. Claiming that he is known to Iraqis and to the whole world, he went on to introduce himself as "the president of the Republic of Iraq". Judge Abdullah Al-Ameri, a Shia Arab, presides over the trial that is expected to last at least four months. The prosecution has said it will present between 120 and 140 witnesses, which could prolong proceedings. A 32-member legal team will represent Anfal victims while 12 lawyers will defend the accused. Saddam and co-defendants could face death by hanging if convicted in the Anfal case. A verdict is due mid-October in the first trial, concerning a crackdown on Shias in the town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, in 1988 following an assassination attempt on the then president. Saddam has the right to appeal if found guilty in the Dujail case. If he loses on appeal he could be hanged before the Anfal trial is over. Iraqi law also provides for him to be taken off the second case for the sentence to be carried out, though Iraqi officials have been unclear on whether they would do so or continue with the Anfal case. It is also not immediately clear why the second trial started before the conclusion of the first. Like in the Dujail trail, the Anfal court already appears incapable of trying Saddam and co- defendants in accordance with international standards of fairness. The Dujail court relied on anonymous witnesses, and even anonymous judges. Signs are that the Anfal court will follow suit. Further, none of the judges in the Anfal case have practiced international human rights law. Simply put, they lack the requisite experience needed to steer the trial effectively. It has been said, however, that an adviser experienced in working with international tribunals would help the court if needed. The Dujail case was marred by the assassination of three defence lawyers, the replacement of the chief judge mid-trial, and frequent outbursts by the defendants. With nothing substantially improved in the Anfal case, there is a strong possibility that it could face the same challenges as the last.
