Three years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Doaa El-Bey questions the commitment of the post-Saddam regime to conduct a fair trial for the former Iraqi president The first half of the trial finished after the court heard testimony from Saddam Hussein and the other seven co-defendants on the Dujail case. Then the five-judge panel called a three-week recess to draw up exact charges against the defendants. Under the Iraqi justice system, the second half of the trial will start when the court reconvenes for prosecution after which the defence will be allowed to address the charges. During the 17 sessions held before the recess, questions were raised regarding the fairness and impartiality of the court. Human rights organisations have questioned the legitimacy of the court and demanded that Saddam's trial be transferred outside Iraq. Saddam's defence team has repeatedly called for the replacement of chief judge Raouf Abdul-Rahman on the grounds that he cannot be impartial because he is a Kurd from Halabja. Saddam is also accused of bombing the city of Halabja and killing some 5,000 Kurds. Nevertheless, the present government has been keen to conduct a quick -- rather than fair -- trial in order to close the Saddam chapter as soon as possible. They claim that delays in the trial further fuel insurgencies inside Iraq. Calls for the transference of the trial outside Iraq or the replacement of the chief judge have both been rejected. Last week, Saddam himself rejected a suggestion from his defence to transfer the trial outside Iraq saying he was born in Iraq and he wanted to die there. William Schabas, an Iraqi expert, believes it is generally best for people to be tried where the crimes took place. "There is nothing inherently wrong with Saddam being tried inside Iraq to the extent that he can get a fair trial," he said. Schabas also pointed out that the participation of non-Iraqi judges was useful because it enhanced the credibility of the trial. "However, the problems with the trial and the turmoil within the country in general make it increasingly doubtful that he can obtain a fair trial within the country. The trial could be held in another Arab state, or by international tribunal -- although this would probably require a Security Council resolution," he added. The court that is trying Saddam was originally established as a special court by the United States led occupation authorities in December 2003. It became known as the high tribunal in October. The fact that it was established by occupying forces has cast doubt in its legitimacy. Sabah Al-Mokhtar head of the London-based Arab Lawyers Association, confirmed that the court is illegitimate because it lacks proper jurisdiction on every level. The trial conducted contradicts with criminal procedure on a number of levels: "the defendants should not be allowed to see their lawyers as often as they like, they should not be shown the documents used by the prosecution before the trial," Al-Mokhtar explained. In this instance, detainees have the right to see their lawyers freely at any time and can see all the documents against them before the trial starts. Furthermore, under the criminal code, 15 years is the period of limitation, but the Dujail accident took place more than 20 years ago. Al-Mukhtar believes that there is no possibility of a fair trial under the present circumstances in Iraq. "Trial outside Iraq is the only available alternative to this mockery of a trial and a kangaroo court that lacks every requirement of a fair trial," he added. In the hope of concluding the trial as soon as possible, the Iraqi government is also interfering in the course of the trial. The former chief judge Rizkar Amin was accused of giving too much room for the defendants. In an attempt to defend judicial independence, Amin resigned in January leaving the trial at a critical time. The government appointed Abdul-Rahman as Amin's successor. He was rejected by the defendants as well as the defence team who accused him of being impartial. From the first session he presided, Abdul-Rahman developed a combative relation with the defendants and their defence team. As a result, the rest of that session was held in the absence of Barzan Al-Tikriti who was ousted by the chief judge, along with Saddam and his defence team who walked out in protest. Al-Mokhtar believes that the appointment of Abdul- Rahman is yet another shortcoming. "Judges in any trial should be impartial and independent. In this case that's not possible". He stated that it is likely that Abdul-Rahman has a grudge against Saddam because he came from Halabja where he had lost some relatives during the Halabja campaign in 1988. Abdul-Rahman was a member of the victim support group after the campaign and was jailed twice during Saddam's reign. "In addition, once a judge is accused by the defendants and the defence of being impartial and is asked to abdicate, he should resign out of respect for the justice system" Al-Mokhtar added. Schabas believes that the fact that a person comes from a place that has suffered from the crime in question does not mean that he is incapable of being fair and impartial. "The issue is not whether someone was the victim of the crime in question, but whether they are themselves independent and impartial," he said. Saddam and the seven co-defendants are charged for ordering the killing of 148 Shias following a failed assassination attempt against Saddam in Dujail -- a Shia town north of Baghdad -- in 1982. If proven guilty, they could face capital punishment. The first 17 sessions have already seen defence walking out of the room, session held in absentia of defendants, judges resigning and lawyers assassinated. Given the present volatile situation in Iraq and the escalating violence, there is no sign that the second half of the trial will be any less eventful.
