Iraq - Saddam Hussein sentenced

Le procès Dujail condamne Saddam à mort par pendaison

Le haut tribunal irakien a condamné Aujourd’hui Saddam Hussein et deux autres accusés à mort par pendaison pour avoir perpétré le massacre en deux villes chiites de Dujail en 1982.

Le procès Dujail qui avait traîné à la justice un bon nombre de ministres et de fonctionnaires de l’ancien régime et qu’on passait à la télévision partout dans le monde, avait commencé le 19 octobre, 2005 et fini le 27 juillet.

Ce fut marqué par des expressions violentes et des harangues de la part de Saddam Hussain et ses co-accusés, par des débrayages des avocats, des plaintes et des critiques des procédures judiciaires, jugées honteuses. Le procès pendant lequel trois avocats de défense avaient été tués, comportait donc une multitude de problèmes d’insécurité.

A la télévision, aujourd’hui, tout le monde a témoigné la finale de ce long procès dont le résultat était attendu à souffle coupé en Irak sous l’occupation anglo-américaine. On a tout de même vu un Saddam, immuable, tenant sa tête droite protester contre les forces de l’occupation et leurs ‘collabos’ avec un Coran dans sa main gauche. Pendant que se prononçait le verdict final du juge, Saddam criait « Vive le peuple irakien ! », « Vive le Dieu ! », « À bas les colons et leur système judiciaire ! Je m'en fous!». Lors que le juge lui demanda de se mettre debout pour écouter le verdict, Saddam s’y refusa vivement. Bref, ce fut un moment de drame et d’émotions sans borne qu'un journaliste du BBC a d'ailleurs qualifié de « Bien calculé » car celui-ci se sera aperçu un sourire de satisfaction que portait le visage du personnage central quand il sortait par les coulisses à la fin de la séance.

Certains Irakiens ont été vus sortir dans les rues malgré le couvre-feu pour célébrer le verdict. La ville natale de Saddam a néanmoins constaté de nombreux incidents de protestation.

Avec Saddam, son demi-frère et l’ex-chef des intelligences irakiennes, Barzan Hassan, accompagné de l’ex-juge en chef de la Cour Révolutionnaire Awad Bandar ont également reçu la peine capitale. Taha Yassin Ramadan, un ancien vice Président d’Irak a été condamné à prison à perpétuité. « Ce verdict était déterminé d’avance et n’a rien à voir avec le procès. » a dit Ramadan.

Mohammed Azzawi Ali, un ancient resposable du Parti Baath a été acquitté faute de preuves suffisantes. Les trois autres - Abdullah Kadhem Ruwaid, Ali Dayem Ali, and Misher Abdullah Ruwaid - condamnés, chacun, à 15 ans de prison ferme.

Pour les quatre premiers condamnés, il y aura automatiquement des procédures d’appel qui prendront 3-4 semaines, dès que les dossiers officiels seront soumis. Mais on ne sait exactement combien de temps la somission des dossiers pourrait prendre. Au cas où la Chambre d’Appel ratifierait la condamnation, Hussein sera exécuté dans un délai de 30 jours.

L'avocat de défense de Saddam, Ziad al-Najdawi, s’est enflammé aujourd'hui devant les journalistes lorsqu’il quittait la salle de tribunal leur disant « Voilà la justice américaine ! ». Son homologue américain, Ramsey Clark, en a été expulsé par le tribunal lui disant qu’il y était venu des Etats-Unis pour se moquer du peuple irakien et de la cour.

Avant que le verdict final ne soit annoncé, Baghdad et deux provinces fortement habitées par la population Sunnites, -- Diyala et Salaheddin -- étaient passés sous couvre-feu, alors que les provinces Chiites et Kurdes en avaient été épargnées.

A Tikrit, quelques milliers de manifestants ont protesté en bravant le couvre-feu contre le verdict injuste condamnant leur leader. Un témoin a indiqué qu’ ils portaient des posters de l’ancien Président et tiraient dans l’air.

L’Airport International de Baghdad restera fermé jusqu’à la prochaine annonce.

L’ambassadeur des Etats-unis en Irak s'est félicité de ce verdict, le nommant « un important jalon pour l’Irak . Cependant, les Irakiens auraient à subir des situations difficiles pendant les jours qui viennent. Tourner la page de Saddam et de son régime est un important pas en avant pour construire un meilleur avenir pour Irak. » a déclaré Zalmay Khalilzad juste à la suite du verdict rendu public.

Bien que les réactions dans le monde arabe soient plutôt partagées devant ce verdict, surtout en Srie et en Jordanie, la plupart affirment que ce n'est que la parodie de justice où un procès s'est déroulé dans un tribunal sans aucune autonomie nin contôle sur ses processus judiciaires.

Arab media prefers to call it ‘double jeopardy’

Following a brief closed session Monday, Jaafar Al-Mussawi, lead prosecutor in the Saddam Hussein Dujail trial, declared that he expects a verdict in the case in three weeks. A verdict had been due 16 October. Mussawi set 5 November as a potential date for another closed session but did not confirm it. The court examining the case needed more time, he said. The Dujail trial started 19 October last year. Meanwhile, Saddam's Anfal trial is still on.

Sabah Al-Mokhtar, president of the Arab Lawyers Association, confirmed that nobody knows the reason for the delay. Some believe that the delay is to give the Iraqi government time to consult US authorities on what should be done. "The government is in a difficult situation. No judge will be able to find Saddam not guilty. But from the legal point of view, the evidence submitted is insufficient to be able to find him guilty.

Mokhtar added that the government would likely delay the verdict as long as possible, on the one hand, and swiftly enforce it when it comes -- including the possible execution of Saddam Hussein -- on the other, in order to leave little time for an appeal.

Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants, including Hussein's half brother, the former vice president and the former secret police chief, are accused of ordering the killing of 148 Shias after a failed assassination attempt on President Hussein in 1982. Meanwhile, the Anfal trial reconvened Tuesday, just one day after the court failed to produce a verdict in the Dujail case. Hussein is facing trial over genocide charges in connection with an alleged government crackdown on Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s. An estimated 120,000 to 180,000 Kurds are alleged to have died between 1987 and 1988.

The opening of the Anfal trial before the conclusion of the Dujail trial raised a number of questions, namely: Is it proper that a person be tried in two separate cases at the same time, especially when it is widely expected that a capital sentence will be passed in both cases? What will happen if Hussein is sentenced to death in the Dujail trial? Will he still be tried in the Anfal case, or could he appeal the Dujail sentence while being tried in the Anfal case?

Mokhtar believes the trials are conducted to satisfy the two components of the present regime: "The first trial was conducted to satisfy the Shias and the second to satisfy the Kurds."
Observers of the two cases cannot help but notice similarities in the conduct of both trials. In the Dujail case, Rauf Abdel Rahman, a hardliner who resorted to aggressive means to control the outbursts of Saddam and his half-brother, replaced Judge Rizkar Amin, who gave Saddam the chance to speak. In the Anfal case, Judge Mohammed Al-Uraibi, who switched off Saddam's microphone to prevent him from speaking, replaced Abdullah Al-Amiri, who refused to call Saddam a dictator.

"Precisely that is why both trials are criticised. This fact discredited both trials and proved that the government is interfering. That is why various human rights organisations feel embarrassed with the trial," Mokhtar said.

Both trials have witnessed raucous sessions with outbursts that ended up in the expulsion of Saddam or some co-defendants from court. In other instances, presiding judges have expelled defence lawyers replacing them with court- appointed ones. "Under international law you can have trial in absentia. But in this case it is illegal. Also appointing lawyers despite the objection of the accused is unlawful," notes Mokhtar.

In both trials the court is widely regarded as illegal because in violation of the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations occupying forces set it up. Under the general human rights law and standards of international due process, defendants and their lawyers should have advance access to all details of the prosecution's case in order to prepare a defence. In the Dujail and Anfal trials, the accused and defence counsel were deprived of that right. At a minimum the accused should have unrestricted and confidential access to defence lawyers of their own choosing. This has also been denied in both trials.

Meanwhile, though imprisoned for almost 3 years, Saddam Hussein continues to address Iraq as president. He wrote a letter addressing his people not to forget their goal to liberate their country from the invaders and their followers and warned them from settling of accounts outside this goal.

In the letter recently made public by his lawyers, Hussein insists on the importance of the unity of Iraq: "We are a united and undivided people ... made up of Arabs, Kurds and various religions and communities." The letter, written to commemorate the holy month of Ramadan, reminded the Iraqi people not to forget their goal of liberating their country from invading forces and their followers and warned against the settling of accounts outside of this goal.

Although Iraqi law states that hanging is the mode of execution in criminal cases, Saddam has said that if convicted and a death sentence passed he wishes to die by a bullet as befits a military man and commander in chief of the Iraqi army.

"Saddam is behaving as the head of state, dealing with court members as his subjects. He has not lost his temper or his composure during the Anfal trail. I think the trial has afforded Saddam all credit and given the government and the US none at all," Mokhtar concluded.

In a separate development, some 500 tribal leaders in the province of Kirkuk in northern Iraq met in a show of unity in the face of the US occupation. They held up portraits of Saddam, declared him the legitimate president and called for his release.

(Al Ahram)