Saddam's death: bad news for the cause of justice?

Iraq's former ruler, Saddam Hussein, is prepared to go to the gallows. "If God wills it, he will place me among real men and martyrs," he wrote in a letter before the Iraqi court of appeal confirmed the death sentence passed down on him for the mass murder which took place in the village of Dujail in 1982. It was there that the country's then president had 148 Shi'ite Muslims put to death following a failed attempt on his life in the vicinity. With the sentence now irrevocable, Iraqi law requires that it be carried out within 30 days.

After his execution, all the other charges still pending against the former dictator will lapse. The special tribunal in Baghdad which tried Saddam Hussein made it known some two years ago that no less than 12 indictments would be brought against the country's one-time ruler.

Even before the verdict was given in the Dujail case, another trial had already commenced in connection with the charges against him relating to what has become known as the 'Anfal campaign' carried out against Iraq's Kurdish population. In 1988, large parts of Iraq were declared no-go zones for Kurds. Hundreds of thousands of them fled their homes, another 182,000 of them 'disappeared'.

The trial based on the Anfal charges could never be completed within 30 days. Geert-Jan Knoops, a Dutch lawyer who's advised Saddam Hussein's lawyers, explains what will happen:
"Immediately after Saddam Hussein is put to death, the prosecutor will then have to ask the tribunal to stop the case [...] It's a fundamental principle that no one can be prosecuted if the person in question is no longer alive. Basically, everyone has the right to defend themselves."
Halabja
So, all the other charges pending against Saddam Hussein will never be read out in a court of law. These include those relating to the poison gas attack on the Kurdish population of Halabja in 1988, in which some 5000 people died. Then there is the invasion of Kuwait, another crime about which no judge will ever hand down judgment. However, Mr Knoops says this doesn't have to mean that there will never be any clarity about these cases:
"A number of Saddam's co-defendants have not received death sentences. And, of course, that means that these charges can simply go ahead and be brought against them."

"But then there's the question of whether this will actually help establish the real truth about what happened. After all, the evidence in these cases focuses mainly on Saddam Hussein and a number of other leading figures from his government. Once they are dead, they clearly won't be able to answer these charges. So it will be difficult to get a true picture of the facts."

Deviate?
The fact that someone like Saddam Hussein will not be called to account for his alleged crimes is not a unique situation in international law. A recent example can in fact be found in the trial of the former president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, which had to be broken off abruptly after he died. The death of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet may also have prevented him from standing trial. Some people have suggested that, in such cases involving serious human rights violation, charges of genocide and mass murder, it might be better to deviate from the rule that a person cannot be tried after their death.

Mr Knoops doesn't think so:

"No, this rule is of such great importance that it should take precedence over every other interest."

In other words, as he explains, the right of an individual to be able to defend themselves is sacrosanct and takes precedence over the interests of the victims and of establishing the historical facts. Moreover, he adds, if Iraq had wanted to see all the other charges against Saddam Hussein raised in a court of law, then the death sentence should not have been handed down:
"Then they would have had to accept that the death penalty can no longer be maintained as a form of punishment."

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)