The trial of Saddam Hussein continues to be a farce that would stand nowhere else in a court of law but in Iraq, writes Zaid Al-Ali Efforts to prepare for the trial of Saddam Hussein keep getting worse. Magistrates in charge of the investigative phase and of the trial itself have no compunction about violating ordinary due process standards, with the entire endeavour continuing to suffer from constant interruptions and interference. This in the context of the political tribulations that Iraq is currently suffering, amid mounting distrust between different communities, has only served to make all matters worse. What is particularly ironic in relation to Saddam Hussein's trial is that continual violations of the most basic due process standards are being carried out while Iraq's new generation of leaders are drafting a new constitution that will set out in detail the rights that Saddam should be entitled to in the context of his trial. So, for example, the latest draft of the constitution leaked to the Iraqi press indicates that "judges are independent and no authority shall be exercised over them outside the law." It is strange, therefore, that Ahmed Chalabi sought to modify the makeup of the tribunal that has been charged with trying Saddam. Approximately two weeks ago, Chalabi made an official request that the president of the tribunal be dismissed because of alleged links to the Baath party prior to 2003. It was left to the American Embassy to remind the Iraqi authorities that this would represent a violation of the tribunal's independence. In addition, Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president, has been unrelenting in applying pressure on the tribunal to start the proceedings sooner rather than later. Talabani is well known for telling journalists when the trial should start, how long it should take, and how it should proceed. Under the new constitution that Talabani will soon have to sign, this type of behaviour will be categorised as unconstitutional. The draft constitution also indicates that "the right of defence is guaranteed". What this usually means is that a defendant should have the right to a lawyer at all times and that this right should not be limited in any way. Not so in Iraq, where the defendants of this special tribunal did not have the benefit of legal representation or access to their lawyers for more than a year. The defendants have not been able to communicate with anyone freely, let alone with their lawyers, and their letters to their families have been monitored and censored. The Observer newspaper in London managed to obtain a small number of very short letters from Tariq Aziz, former Iraqi foreign minister and one of Saddam's co-defendants, one of which read: "We hope that you will help us. We have been in prison for a long time and we have been cut from our families. No contacts, no phones, no letters. Even the parcels sent to us by our families are not given to us. We need fair treatment, a fair investigation and finally a fair trial. Please help us." Meanwhile, reports have been circulating about the incredible incompetence of the magistrates that are running the proceedings thus far. A few days ago, it was reported that during one of the hearings in which Saddam was present, one of the magistrates apparently assaulted the defendant. This was denied by the tribunal and by the occupation authorities, but Saddam's main defence attorney, who was present at the time, has decided to boycott the proceedings until an apology is offered. In addition, thus far, the investigatory phase of the proceedings has only completed its enquiry in relation to one of the crimes that the chief defendant is allegedly guilty of, which was the wholesale destruction of an Iraqi village after an assassination attempt had been made against Saddam there in the early 1980s. Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, the special tribunal's public information desk, which provides almost no details about the proceedings or the status of the tribunal's progress, has seen fit to distribute the names of all the lawyers that are acting for the accused, even though it does not provide any information in relation to the magistrates or the prosecuting attorneys. No one amongst the tribunal's staff seems to realise that in so doing, they have placed these people's lives at risk. All this stands in pathetic contrast to the treatment that is being afforded by the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to the defendants currently on trial in The Hague. The rationale is clear in both cases: the tribunal in The Hague is obsessed with providing its defendants good treatment and in ensuring that it is perceived as being objective, so as to guarantee that no one will question the historical legacy that it will establish; in the case of the Iraqi tribunal, what is intended is to prevent Saddam and his fellow defendants from expressing themselves publicly and to eliminate them without giving them a fair trial, so as to prevent them from revealing any of the embarrassing secrets they have about Iraq's relationship with Western powers. Most of the above would probably merely be considered comic if it wasn't for the tragic context in which the trial preparations were being made. The guilt of the trial's main defendant is of course beyond doubt, but the history of events that led up to his downfall remains a highly contentious issue within Iraq and amongst its population. The Iraqi people do not agree about what took place in their modern history. Whereas Kurds believe that they have been the victims of a genocidal campaign of elimination (which includes, but is not limited to, the Anfal operation), the country's Arab population mostly believes that this is either exaggerated or entirely fictitious. Also, the country's Sunni population is under the impression that the repression of the 1991 uprising in the South focussed only on the movement's leaders, and refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of the victims were in fact completely uninvolved in the fighting. A truth and reconciliation committee in Iraq remains for the time being a complete impossibility given the ongoing sectarian tension. However, Saddam Hussein's trial presented a unique opportunity to set out before all of Iraq's citizens a complete account of what actually took place during the 1980s and 1990s. Of course, a number of countries throughout the world suffer from fundamental disagreements about their recent histories. Chile and Spain are examples that come to mind. However, the trial of Saddam could have been used to lay a number of capital issues to rest. Even from a purely political and cynical point of view, a speedy, transparent and credible trial could have been used to facilitate the political process. However, because of the diabolic state of affairs surrounding the tribunal and its proceedings, no one will believe anything that comes out of the whole thing. Yet another opportunity that Iraq's new leaders, and the occupation authorities, have chosen to miss.
