The Trial of Saddam Hussein

The trial for crimes committed by Saddam Hussein during his more than two decades in power took place in the Iraqi High Criminal Court. Under Saddam Hussein’s rule, the Ba’ath regime, the Iraqi government was responsible for the torture and deliberate killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, as well as massive war crimes against Iranians and Kuwaitis. One of the worst crimes within Iraq was the 1987-1988 Anfal campaign, a brutal operation to destroy hundreds of Kurdish communities in the north. Iraqi forces systematically killed as many as 100,000 Kurdish men, women, and children in a crime now generally acknowledged to have constituted genocide.

Another wave of severe repression followed a revolt by Shi’a marsh Arabs in the south in 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War. In that campaign, villages were shelled and burned and ancient marshes drained, resulting in thousands of deaths, forced displacements and the destruction of marsh Arab communities.

The Iraqi Court conducted separate trials for crimes committed in key incidents, beginning with the mass murders of some 148 Shiites form Dujail as retaliation for the failed assassination attempt on Hussein’s life on the 8th of July, 1982.

The first trial began on October 19th, 2005. There were several road blocks over the following year including the assassinations of several defense lawyers and a change in the chief judge from Rizgar Amin to interim chief judge Rauf Rashi al-Rahman. On June 19th,2006 the sentence of death by hanging was called for by chief prosecutor, Jaafar al-Moussawi. A verdict was reached on November 5th 2006 convicting Saddam Hussein for ordering the murders in Dujail. The Iraqi High Court sentenced Hussein to death by hanging. After a failed appeal attempt on December 26th, Saddam Hussein’s sentence was enforced on December 30th, 2006.

Duty and Impact of the Iraqi High Court's Trial of Hussein

The trials of former President Hussein and seven other high officials offered Iraqi society the opportunity to bring to account many of those responsible for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century, and create a full public record of the massive human rights violations perpetrated during Saddam Hussein’s rule.  Sixty years of international experience, beginning with the Nuremberg trials, has shown the importance of legal accountability as a key element in the reconstruction of societies emerging from dictatorship, repression, and armed conflict.

The Court’s principal duty was to the people of Iraq. Therefore, Human Rights First urged the Court to satisfy the Iraqi public, as well as the international community, that the trials would be fair and that convictions would be supported by overwhelming, credible evidence. It is only in this way that any Court can effectively reaffirm to the world that torture, “disappearance,” and murder can never be justified; and that those with command responsibility will ultimately be held criminally responsible for the crimes of those acting under their authority.

Trials of those responsible for crimes against humanity and other grave human rights crimes can help to stop cycles of violence motivated by revenge and retribution, and they can help lay a foundation for the return of the rule of law in countries recovering from periods of brutal, violent use of force. They can also increase the effectiveness of other international efforts to end conflicts, and help deter future crimes. It is essential for trials, such as those of Saddam Hussein, to remain consistent with recognized international fair trial standards. They must give voice to the victims of human rights crimes and an opportunity for witnesses and survivors to provide evidence and confront the accused.  For the Court to truly succeed, HRF believed it was imperative for the Court to guarantee the security of witnesses, both survivors of human rights crimes and witnesses for the defense. Court proceedings  should also establish criminal responsibilities and penalties in a way that fully exposes the facts to the light of day and advances justice and respect for the rule of law. HRF firmly asserted that only through abiding by such principles will a court, including the Iraqi High Criminal Court, serve as a firm foundation for construction of a fair and just Iraqi criminal justice system.

Areas of Concern

In preparing for this case, investigative judges and prosecutors worked for over two years, preparing a file of two million documents, including testimony from at least 7,000 witnesses; yet under the Court rules at the time, Saddam Hussein’s lawyers were only given 45 days to examine the prosecution’s materials before proceedings began. The Court announced that evidence about the Dujail case was delivered to the defense on August 10, 2005, but defense lawyers told the Washington Times on September 28 that they had just been handed additional documents. Defense lawyers stated they would seek to delay the proceedings.

According to reports from the New York Times, Knight Ridder, and other media, the Iraqi High Criminal Court was under pressure from some Iraqi government officials to hold a quick trial and to impose and carry out punishment – widely expected to be execution – very rapidly. If true, this raises a host of concerns. Among these is the possibility that Saddam Hussein did not face prosecution for many of the most serious crimes committed under his command, and there would not be an accounting to victims and history for the consistent pattern of gross human rights violations committed while he was in power.

Concerns regarding physical security of the judges and other Court personnel may have been a motive for the apparent pressure to conclude proceedings quickly. Three defense attorneys, including Hussein’s chief defense lawyer, were killed and a plot to attack the trial venue had been allegedly discovered and thwarted. The U.S faced repeated scrutiny over its inadequate protection of the defense lawyers, which in turn threatened the credibility of the Court.

Yet at least one important critic, former Ba’athist Saleh al-Mutalk, a leader of the Sunni delegation in recent negotiations about the draft Iraqi constitution, had accused the government of seeking a speedy trial to “win election-season political points” in anticipation of upcoming National Assembly elections that were held on December 15, 2005. At that time, fear of a drawn-out process that Saddam Hussein could use to score propaganda points against the government and the U.S.–led military coalition also probably played a role.

None of these factors, however, can justify short-circuiting the accountability, truth-telling functions of the Court, and handing out of capital punishments. In the future, Human Rights First urges the Iraqi High Criminal Court to undertake its work expeditiously but thoroughly and to conduct the proceedings in a manner so as to create a public record that will stand as a lasting memorial to truth and justice.

Q & A on the Iraqi Special Tribunal

Human Rights First Fair Trial Manual (PDF - 151KB)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Convention Against Torture