15.01.2007

Sadly enough, the world seems to be used to the daily death toll in Iraq -- that has mounted since the beginning of the war, according to some estimates, to more than half a million. What has diverted a global interest towards Iraq again was, however, the execution of the former Iraqi dictator. What has diverted a global interest towards Iraq again was, however, the execution of the former Iraqi dictator.

The “Trial of the century,” as dubbed by the media concerning the trial of Saddam Hussein, ended exactly the same way as the whole thing in Iraq started: by challenging the established principles of international law.

This development in Iraq is even likely to contribute to the emergence of a new customary international law -- needless to say, with much less human face than one we currently use to rely upon. Furthermore, in the light of Saddam's outcome, this trend looks almost irreversible.

Although the international human rights law doesn't prohibit the death penalty as such, the legal procedures prior to the sentence must be carried out in line with the meticulous international legal standard and Iraq as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is fully bound by them.

Since the Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT) was established to try Saddam back in 2003 there has been a heated dispute on whether it could ensure the handling of legitimate and reliable trials.

To question proof of guilt [of committing the most serious crimes] “beyond any reasonable doubt” in this case would be rather redundant but a guarantee of the fair, impartial and politically independent trial remains still doubtful. Unlike the trials with other war criminals, the Saddam trial stayed local without substantial international assistance and supervision.

A question of fairness was a central theme debated all through the process and opinions on legality and compliance with the international standard of the trial greatly vary. However, an issue of punishment somehow lingered behind.

In general, the main function of a legal sanction should be basically pedagogical and its aim should be clear from the sentence. Even though an understanding that the death penalty doesn't have such a function it was adopted by the international community relatively recently. Capital punishment has not been used by any international war crime tribunal for some time, not even for the most grievous crimes.

Also, it has been widely internationally acknowledged -- and increasingly more and more states accept it domestically too -- that a state orchestrated execution is yet another crime and the right to life has to be respected unexceptionally.

The execution of Saddam, besides being conducted so hastily, resembles more a retribution than an act of true legal impartial justice. It hadn't merely created a martyr out of a cruel tyrant but it completely undermined the entire rationale behind a legal trial. In connection with tasteless broadcasting of details from the death chamber as well as a repeating surfacing of amateurish videos, obtained due to the lack of security measures, the “Trial of the Century” doesn't provide us with much evidence of the existence of a system of law that has gone beyond the primitive stages of vengeful justice.

It is chillingly alarming to realize that this process marks yet another evolutionary step in the criminal trials started by the Nuremberg processes, breaking thus a reliable existence of consistent practice in prosecution of the crimes against humanity.

Iraq is more in need of re-deploying respect for the international standards and synchronization with universally accepted legal practices than of 20,000 new American troops. If this is not urgently established, any “innovative” strategy in Iraq, whether “staying with the course” or “changing the course” would hardly bring about a “breakthrough” and is most likely to fail.