Dictator in the dock

IN a closely guarded courtroom deep in the heart of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, a once feared and imperious dictator will today stand in the dock to answer accusations that that he committed crimes against humanity. Security fears mean the public will be barred from the court. Even the identities of the judges have been kept secret. The trial of Saddam Hussein will begin.

Ever since he was found hiding in a cellar at a farmhouse near his home city of Tikrit, his trial has been a looming challenge to the new Iraqi government, a test of both its authority and its legitimacy. Now it is finally getting underway.

It could be a short-lived beginning. After Saddam and his co-accused hear the charges against them, the former dictator's defence team is expected to ask for an adjournment for several weeks to allow time to prepare their case. But this will be just a temporary delay, a mere blip in what is likely to be a long-running case. So what are the charges facing Saddam? What is his defence? And could he be executed if found guilty?

Q How will Saddam be tried?

A A panel of five judges will hear the case against Saddam and five co-accused, including his half-brother Barzan Ibrahim Al-Hassan and former vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan. The panel is part of the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST), set up in December 2003 by the Iraqi Governing Council.

Witnesses will be questioned by the chief judge, Raed Juhi, although the identities of the other judges have been kept secret for their own safety. Although the public will not be admitted, proceedings could be televised. If convicted, Saddam will have the right to appeal against his sentence, to a nine-judge tribunal.

QWhat are the charges against him?

A Although he has been accused of involvement in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the charge Saddam faces today concerns the killing of 143 from the mixed Sunni-Shia town of Dujail, about 60km north of Baghdad. Saddam visited the town to rally support in July 1982, in the early days of the Iran-Iraq war, but as he left a group of gunmen hiding in palm groves fired on his convoy.

The assassination attempt failed and most of the gunmen were killed by Saddam's bodyguards. The dictator returned to the town, where he was filmed by his personal cameraman haranguing the town, promising to root out the traitors, and personally questioning two suspects.

The following days saw hundreds of men, women and children from the town rounded up and taken away. Some were held for up to four years before they returned to Dujail, but some of those arrested never went back.

Q What is his defence?

A The defence response to the specific allegation is expected to be that those who were killed had been found guilty under Iraqi law and that Saddam's only role was to sign their death warrants. In this, they will argue, he is no different to George Bush, who signed the death warrants of 152 prisoners while he was Governor of Texas.

More fundamentally, the defence will challenge the legitimacy of the tribunal, and say that the US had no authority to change the legal system of an occupied country. Moreover, the system was introduced by an unelected body, the Iraqi Governing Council, and is therefore illegal under the Geneva Convention.

The defence will also claim that as a former head of state, Saddam is immune from prosecution under international law, and that this cannot be rescinded by retrospective legislation.

Q What other difficulties face the prosecution?

A The challenge for the prosecution is to prove that Saddam was personally responsible for ordering the deaths. But the former dictator had a reputation for not putting anything in writing, possibly precisely to avoid leaving his fingerprints on any potentially criminal acts. Proving a link may therefore be far from straightforward.

The tribunal has also been criticised by independent human rights organisations, which have questioned its ability to give Saddam a fair trial. Whatever he may have done, they argue, he deserves to be tried on the same basis as anyone else. To this end, they claim that the tribunal position that it has only to be "satisfied" of guilt, falls short of the accepted international standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Independent groups also have questions over the legitimacy of a body established during occupation, and over the lack of time the defence has been given to prepare its case, and over its access to prosecution documents.

Q Could he face other charges?

A The transitional Iraqi government has suggested that Saddam could face 11 other trials. Although details of any other charges are unclear, Saddam has been accused of a number of other crimes which could form the basis of future hearings. Among these are the deaths of around 180,000 Kurds during a crackdown in the 1980s, reprisals on the Shia community following an uprising at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991, and crimes committed during the occupation of Kuwait.

Iran has also called for Saddam to be tried for launching the Iran-Iraq War in 1980, and for using chemical weapons during its eight year duration.

Although the Dujail killings are on a far smaller scale than many of the other allegations, the case is believed to have been chosen for the first trial by the prosecution on the basis that it is their strongest, with months spent gathering forensic and documentary evidence. A conviction in this case could mean there is no need for further trials, which would prove much more complicated and time-consuming.

Q Could he face the death penalty?

A This is still unclear. There have been widespread calls across Iraq for Saddam to be executed, although President Jalal Talabani has said he opposes the death sentence. Human rights organisations have opposed the possibility the death sentence could be imposed, and say this gives an added dimension to doubts about the tribunal's legitimacy. A decision on whether Saddam will be executed if he is convicted may not be taken until the last minute.

Q What does this mean for Iraq?

A For a country in the grip of an insurgency which is defying all attempts to create a stable democracy, a potentially long-running trial could provide a further flashpoint. Regardless of their sympathy for his regime, those determined to force the US out of Iraq could use the doubts over the tribunal's legitimacy to fuel resentment at the continuing occupation and the authority of the transitional government.

The US and the transitional government no doubt hope that a trial and conviction are crucial in helping Iraq negotiate the transition from dictatorship to democracy, but it will be a rocky road. An imprisoned Saddam risks providing a rallying point for discontents. An executed Saddam risks turning a feared dictator into a martyr for the cause of Iraqi self-determination.