The Hanging as against Husseins Human Rights - Case Study Example

An Identification and Criticism of a Substantive Human Rights Issue Regarding the Death Sentence of Saddam Hussein The Death Sentence and subsequenthanging of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has received widespread condemnation from across the globe. This condemnation came from those who had previously criticized Saddam, as well as his supporters. Human rights organizations were quick to condemn both the trial and the hanging as against Hussein's human rights. They had also previously condemned Hussein for genocide and many other human rights violations Why might nations and organizations who had been supportive of attempts to overthrow Hussein now be so opposed to his judicial death It would be nave to suppose that Iraq would abolish the death penalty, especially as its occupying force also applies the death sentence. Saddam Hussein himself did not hesitate to execute those who opposed him, without consideration of their substantive rights. The death sentence may actually have violated International Law, since the IHT (Iraqi High Tribunal) ruled out the possibility of an appeal: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 6(4)). This covenant had been ratified by Iraq more than 30 years ago. "The death penalty has not been imposed by an international court since the end of the Second World War" (Kadri, 2007) Objections There were three main objections to the death sentence for Saddam Hussein: Against the Death Penalty: Human rights activists see the death penalty as a 'cruel and unusual' punishment, and usually refer to it as 'judicial murder'. Against the trial in Iraq. There are questions to be asked about whether a defeated leader can ever be justly tried by conquering forces. Against the nature of the trial. Most seem to agree that the trial was hugely unfair to Hussein, the judges were under pressure to reach a guilty verdict; the defense (Or at least that part of it that was not killed before the end of the trial) was not given all of the facts, and the death sentence was speedily carried out without adequate time for appeal. The agreement among the objectors is that the United States failed to provide a fair and evidence-based trial for Saddam Hussein. While issues such as the death penalty are clearly procedural, the allegation that the verdict was pre-arranged, and no adequate proof of Saddam's guilt was provided, fall into the category of Substantive law. Substantive Issues The defendants were charged with committing "Murder, torture, forced displacement, and unlawful imprisonment" (Human Rights Watch, 2006). However, because the charges were so vague (Ibid) some feel that Saddam was instead, convicted of Crimes against Humanity "An offence against international Law for which Iraqi law stipulates no penalty" (Kadri, 2007). In Substantive Law, Criminal Intent must be shown. Although the news media have presented this as already proven, in fact, the intent was not proven in law. Members of the trial proceedings were killed, injured or dismissed (Due to being seen as too lenient towards Saddam). Therefore, there was no consistent hearing of evidence, not of defense. Those picked to hear the case were Kurds and Shiites, effectively excluding those of Hussein's own ethnic group. A judge was appointed with a 'conflict of interest', as he came from Halabja (mathaba, 2006) International human rights activists are concerned that the trial of Hussein over Dujail prevented Saddam's other victims from presenting their cases. Not only were these cases more provable, but the United States and the United Kingdom were intimately involved in these crimes. International Law There are two essential pieces of International Law which have been violated by the trial and death Sentence of Saddam Hussein: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) The right of everyone to competent tribunals (Article 8) The right of everyone to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal (Article 10) The right of everyone to be presumed innocent until found guilty according to law. (article 11) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by "Competent, independent, and impartial tribunal" (Article 14) This latter international Law was ratified by Iraq, and has not been subsequently rejected. The IHT is therefore still bound by it. The Charges The Charges of murder and torture were made as "crimes against humanity under article 12 of the IHT statute" (Human Rights Watch 2006) These charges need to be proved, as is the individual's intent to commit these crimes. There were a number of witnesses to the crimes at Dujail, so it should have been relatively simple to convict on these terms. Criminal Intent In order to lawfully convict a person, it is necessary to show that they were able to tell right from wrong. Right from wrong is not according to international law, but according to the laws of the country. To prove that Hussein knew he was doing wrong, the court would have had to prove that his crimes were illegal at the time that he was doing them. Members of the Trial The judges were picked by the Iraqi government, probably with the 'assistance' of the States. The five judges picked were of ethnic groups which had been opposed to Hussein when he was in power. No Sunnis, Saddam's tribe, were included. One judge was replaced, "For being too lenient" (Mathaba, 2006); the judge who replaced him was a Kurd from Halabja, where Hussein is supposed to have committed mass murder. The judge could not, therefore, be unbiased in this case. This judge questioned witnesses without the defense team being present, as they either walked out in protest, or were expelled from the chamber in violation of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, article 14. This judge also ordered the defendants to be removed; turned off defendant's microphones; threw the press out; and appointed lawyers to replace defendant's chosen legal team when the attorneys walked out in protest. The administration failed to provide security for the members of the trial, and out of 1, 500 lawyers on the defense team, 1,100 quit after two of the team were killed, and a third seriously injured.(Mathaba, 2006). This is a violation of International Law. Saddam's defense team were not protected (See above). Attorneys from outside Iraq were not permitted to see or talk to the clients, while the defense team in Iraq often worked without access to relevant materials. "Legal notes from the defense members [were] subjected to American officials approval before they [were] passed on to the defendants [Violating the UDHR, Article 11, ICCPT, article 14 (3b)] Saddam was denied any kind of legal council for a full year after arrest, and his complaints about the trial were ignored. Both the UN and Amnesty International have described the Iraqi Tribunal as violating international Law. Other Charges Other charges concerning Hussein continued after his death The chief one of these is the charge that Saddam committed genocide against ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq. Saddam was not allowed to comment on US and UK involvement in providing the arms which he used against the Kurds. (Medialens 2006) "After Saddam Hussein's Execution, the trial continues without him" (Trial Watch, 2006). Summary The trial of Saddam Hussein was conducted by an invading force, and showed considerable prejudice against him (In violation of both the UDHR and the ICCPR). His defense team were not protected (Another violation), and the trial judges were replaced with those invested in punishing Saddam (Another violation). He was not presented with an evidence-based case (Thereby being found guilty against the rule of law), and the tribunal itself was exceptional in 'crimes against humanity' trials for allowing the death sentence. Iraqi law provides no punishment for crimes against humanity, so his death sentence was, again, against the rule of Iraqi Law. The conviction and death sentence were, according to international law, illegal, and a significant violation of Hussein's human rights. Bibliography Amnesty International (2006) "Amnesty International Deplores Death Sentences in Saddam Hussein Trial" http://web.amnesty.org/web. CNN (IBNLive) "Comedy, Tragedy, Chaos of Saddam's trial" http://www.ibnlive.com CourtTVnews (2006) "Human Rights Watch Calls Saddam Trial 'questionable', Criticizes Death sentence" Nov 20, 2006. http://www.courttv.com/trials/saddam Human Rights Watch (2006) Judging Dujail: The First Trial Before the Iraqi High Tribunal Human Rights Watch Volume 18, No. 9. (2006) "Iraq: Saddam Hussein Put to Death" http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/12/30/iraq14950.htm Kadri, Sadakat: "An Illegal Hanging" New Statesman 8 January 2007. Mathaba "On Trial - Saddam Hussein or Iraqi Special Tribunal" http://mathaba.net/news. MediaLens (2006) Hanging Saddam Hussein - Burying Western Complicity November 13, 2006. Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights (2006) "Saddam Hussein Sentenced to Death" http://www.mnadvocates.org/printview/Saddam_Hussein_Sentenced_to_Death.html Politics.com "Govt Welcomes 'justice' for Saddam" http://www.politics.co.uk Reuters (2006) " Saddam's Death Sentence Upheld" 27 Dec 2006. 'Rich' (2006) " Sentencing Saddam Hussein to Death Seems Misguided" http://boakes.org/saddam-death-penalty Scotsman.com "Human Rights Group Slams Saddam's Trial and Verdict" Mon 20 Nov 2006. Sevastpulo, Demetri " Saddam Hussein Executed in Baghdad" Financial Times. December 29, 2006. Swissinfo (2006) "Swiss Speak Out Against Saddam Death Sentence" November 5 2006. http://swissinfo.org (Jan 2006) " Expert Raises Doubts Over Saddam trial" January 23 2006. Trial Watch "Saddam Hussein al-Majid al Tikriti" http://trial-ch.org/trailwatch. Vencat, Emily Flynn. "Has Saddam Reached his Last Appeal" Newsweek Dec 27, 2006. Read More