Home

Holding Hussein accountable for all his crimes

6 September 2005

I've written about this before, but given that Saddam's trial seems to be approaching I'll reemphasize some things. The October 19th trial will focus exclusively on Saddam's participation in the massacre of Shi'a villagers in al-Dujail in which hundreds were executed in repudiation of an assasination attempt on Hussein.

If found guilty, the Iraqi government has indicated that Saddam could be executed without facing any further charges. This would mean that Saddam's involvement in atrocities committed against Kurds, in Halabja, and Iranians, during the 1980-88 war, would go unaccounted for. While Saddam's campaign against Kurds has always been on the list of prelminary charges the Prosecutor is responsible for investigating, crimes against Iranians has never been seriously considered by the Iraqi Tribunal and has prompted Iranian officials to prepare their own charges. I'm unsure what standing Iran would have to file a complaint with the Court. However, its worth noting that the the Statute for the Special Tribunal allows the Court jurisdiction over "crimes committed in connection with Iraq’s wars against the Islamic Republic of Iran."

In my opinion, convicting Saddam solely for crimes committed in al-Dujail would be a huge mistake. Post-conflict tribunals are not prosecutory systems intended solely to convict and punish particular perpetrators. They are created to instill confidence back into social institutions, including political and judicial structures. Moreover, a hallmark of transitional justice is its ability to attain reconciliation in past atrocities. In part this demands that the offenders face up to all their crimes, and not that which is sufficient to convict them. Victims and bystanders of Saddam's regime will feel cheated and disillusioned by the government and the Special is their own victimization isn't accounted for in trials against Saddam. As a result the Court would effectively fail in creating the type of confidence in judicial institutions needed for post-conflict resolution.

Cross posted on Iranian Truth

Who's getting rich from COVID-19?

Boris Johnson's government stands accused of 'COVID cronyism', after handing out staggering sums of money to controversial private firms to fight COVID-19. Often the terms of these deals are kept secret, with no value-for-money checks or penalties for repeated failures which cost lives. And many major contracts have gone directly to key Tory donors and allies – without competition.

As COVID rates across the country surge, how can we hold our leaders accountable? Meet the lawyers, journalists and politicians leading the charge in our free live discussion on Thursday 1 October at 5pm UK time.

Hear from:

Dawn Butler Labour MP for Brent Central and member of the House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology

Peter Geoghegan Investigations editor, openDemocracy, and author of 'Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics'

Jolyon Maugham Barrister and founder of the Good Law Project.

Peter Smith Procurement expert and author of 'Bad Buying: How Organisations Waste Billions through Failures, Frauds and F*ck-ups'

Chair: Mary Fitzgerald Editor-in-chief of openDemocracy

Had enough of ‘alternative facts’? openDemocracy is different Join the conversation: get our weekly email

Comments

We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData