Can Saddam Hussein expect a fair trial, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, or is he bound to be the victim of expediency Nearly two years after his capture, Saddam Hussein appeared in court last week to answer for the crimes he committed as the ruler of Iraq. But what is being labelled the trial of the century is raising concern about the fairness and competence of the special tribunal set up to try the former head of state, souring a moment that was eagerly anticipated by his many victims. There is also some controversy over the first charge brought against Saddam, which centres on the execution of more than 140 men and teenage boys in Dujail in retaliation for a failed assassination attempt against him in 1982. Many Iraqis, mainly from among the Shiites and Kurds who suffered the most at his hands, believe he should first be called to account for other even more heinous crimes involving tens of thousands of victims, and that the court's choice of this particular massacre as the starting point of the trial is too narrow. Iraqi officials say they chose to begin with the Dujail case because it is relatively straightforward to prosecute, centering on a sequence of well-documented events, beginning on the day of the assassination attempt and ending, once the death sentence was passed, with the executions at the Abu Ghraib prison. Western human rights groups warn that Saddam is unlikely to get a fair trial. And, despite assurances from some Western legal experts that the Iraqi court offers legal safeguards comparable to those applied by the international court of justice, critics both inside and outside Iraq believe the proper forum for the trial would have been an international tribunal of the kind that has spent four years hearing the case against former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague. Strong criticism has been levelled against the tribunal and its legal procedures by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others, who expressed "serious concerns" about the tribunal's "capacity to conduct trials that are fair". There has been a great deal of pressure from Iraq's new rulers to expedite Saddam's appearance in court, and senior tribunal officials gave as their reason for acceding to government pressure the fear of being dismissed. Their fears are well-founded: in the past 15 months, Iraqi leaders have forced the appointment and later dismissal of a succession of tribunal officials, including three men who served as its administrative director. The political interference is what is meant to be a judicial process began as soon as formal sovereignty was restored to Iraq last year under prime minister Iyad Allawi and has continued under the government of Ibrahim Al-Jaafari. This raises the question of where the priorities of Iraq's new ruling establishment lie. Many of its members were victims of the Saddam regime, having lost relatives and fled into exile, and their main priority seems to be to remove their former nemesis from the political scene as quickly as possible rather than to ensure that he gets the punishment he deserves for all the crimes he has committed. This second approach is not easy to implement, given the tremendous number of crimes committed. Moreover, although Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said "Saddam should be executed 20 times," a death sentence can be carried out only once. So should it be carried out after the first death sentence is handed down, or after all the cases against him have been heard and adjudicated, a process that could extend beyond Saddam's natural lifetime? Which would mean, in practical terms, that Saddam will not be put to death! Under fire for starting with the Dujail case, tribunal officials say subsequent trials will deal with Saddam's more brutal crimes and that preparations for the second trial are nearing completion. This will deal with the so-called Anfal offensive, a series of attacks involving chemical weapons ordered by Saddam on dozens of Kurdish villages in 1988, the worst of them on Halabja. There is even talk that the case could run in tandem with the Dujail trial, with Saddam shuttling, on separate days, between the two courtrooms. Saddam's defence team has come forward with several motions to dismiss the case, one citing the lack of time for defence lawyers to review the 800 pages of evidence presented by prosecutors, another that the tribunal itself is illegitimate because it was established under US military occupation and the third that defence lawyers were not allowed to consult with their clients often enough. Another valid reason to dismiss the case is the highly prejudicial statement made by Jalal Talabani on state-run television, in which he alleged that Saddam had confessed to ordering the massacre of Kurds during the Anfal offensive for which he deserved to die 20 times over. Needles to say, however, the trial, denounced by many as nothing more than a display of "victor's justice", will proceed as planned. After a largely ceremonial first session, notable only for Saddam's defiant stance, the trial was adjourned to 29 November. When it resumes, will it unfold as a political vendetta, an exercise in score-settling by aggrieved victims of the former dictator, or as a serious attempt to abide by the rule of law and begin a process of national healing and reconciliation?
