Human Rights Group Says Saddam’s Trial Was Flawed and Unfair

According to the watchdog group Human Rights Watch, the trial of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was so seriously flawed and messy that he did not get a fair trial. The group spent 10 months analyzing the Dujail trial, examining courtroom transcripts, assessing witness observations, and interviewing dozens of defense lawyers, prosecutors, and judges. The report is the first significant challenge to the verdict and sentencing staunchly supported by the Iraqi government and its U.S> patrons.

The report says that the Iraqi High Tribunal’s independence and supposed impartiality was undermined by actions of the Iraqi government, most obviously by the chief judge’s outbursts in the courtroom. According to the report, Saddam’s defense lawyers failed to disclose key evidence, and other defendants were robbed of their basic rights to confront witnesses. There were gaps in the evidence that was presented, which weakened the case for the prosecution.

The report says that the flaws in the trial "put in doubt whether all the elements of the crimes charged were established." The guilty verdict at the end of the trial condemned Saddam and seven co-defendants for the torture and execution of 148 people in the hamlet of Dujail more than 20 years ago. Saddam has been sentenced to death by hanging.

Nehal Bhuta, the author of the report, said that the tribunal "squandered an important opportunity to deliver credible justice to the people of Iraq." His statement continued, "And its imposition of the death penalty after an unfair trial is indefensible."

On Sunday, two United States advisors to the tribunal denounced the report, calling in "misguided" and saying that the trial was conducted properly and incontrovertible justice was delivered appropriately. The advisers, who wished to remain anonymous, said that the authors of the report did not examine the tribunal’s written judgment on the trial, which is expected to be completed early this week. But Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice program at Human Rights Watch, said that the written judgment is "irrelevant" because their report does not address the quality of the judgment, only the fairness of the trial.

But, said the advisers, "To question the overall integrity of the justice without reading the judgment is premature, at best."

The trial of Saddam Hussein is the first in history to be conducted against a former leader by his own people in his own country.