International monitors en route to Baghdad to observe the trial said the new statutes, passed by parliament but not yet published as law, add a "new layer of murkiness" to a controversial process that is expected to set a benchmark for the quality of law in the new Iraq.
The statutes, expected to take effect as early as tomorrow, include a provision allowing the five-judge Iraqi Special Tribunal to prevent Saddam from speaking in his own defence...
International observers assigned to the trial remain troubled by what they describe as a closed process.
"Look to Rwanda, to the former Yugoslavia, to Sierra Leone and East Timor and you see a pattern of internationalized tribunals, where the process was transparent and open to comment and refinement before the proceedings began," said Richard Dicker, who will attend Saddam's trial for Human Rights Watch.
"But the model chosen for Iraq goes the other way."
The secrecy of the tribunal wouldn't be as big a problem if there was any reason to think that a fair trial would take place. But there's little reason to think that when the parliament is all too willingly violating multiple principles of fair trials. From this article alone, it's clear that the parliament is passing laws of specific rather than general application, not making the laws known to the defence (or to anybody else), and not allowing the defendant to rebut the evidence against him. That combination can only serve to make any conviction illegitimate.
There's almost certainly a case to be made against Saddam which would hold up in a fair and open tribunal. That being the case, the outright refusal to provide such a tribunal only makes Iraq's current rulers look like they're going to follow in the footsteps of the man now on trial. And one would think those are benchmarks that the new regime would want to avoid.
No comments:
Post a Comment