#3 For the predictably lame crtique of the Dujayl trial, see Human Rights Watch. For the more impressive critique by the organization that actually had a rep present for most of the trial, see the International Committee on Transitional Justice (ICTJ). For the rebuttal of most of the ICTJ's critique, see .... well, I've got a pretty good response done by the court advisor's office at the embassy, but suffice it to say that the several legitimate complaints made by ICTJ wouldn't appear to the normal reasonable person to bring the basic fairness of the trial into question.
The court was green (as is the whole power structure), the pressures were tremendous, the personalities were what they were, so the thing had some warts. But to my eyes the only thing that materially touched on fairness was the incompetence and bad faith of most of the defense counsel. And this is a bit of a dilemma, I believe in any system (napoleonic code or common law) - only so much can be done by the court to compensate for poor performance by defendants' counsel of choice. In this system, at least, the panel of judges (who are deemed expert and serve as both judge and jury in our concept of a court) can make any allowance they deem proper for incompetent defense counsel (e.g., disregard evidence that the defense failed to adequately challenge if they think it's suspect).
ExJAG, or other legal types, you around to help correct or amplify on this point?
If even unwittingly, and of course with no moral authority and even a reasonable presumption of bad faith hostility on her part, the insufferable Arbour does get one thing right: it was in everyone's interest that the process be seen as reasonably fair and credible. That it may not be, however, may be largely due to characteristically poor media coverage that misportrayed the proceedings and gave superficial treatment of evidence and legal issues involved. The irresponsible and arrogant - not to mention small-minded - refusal of the UN to have anything to do with the court didn't help in that regard either.
My sources tell me things inside the court went a bit off-the-rails back before verdict day, and today's confused coverage of just what's gonna happen with No. 1, and when, and with whose say-so, seems to confirm that. The court was always able to issue contradictory and confusing info (boy can I testify to that), but today's muddle marks a new high(low) point, given the issue involved.
|
The UN human rights chief today called for restraint by Iraqi authorities over Saddam Hussein's death sentence, saying there were concerns about the fairness of the original trial.