Among the first signs that factors other than the demands of justice will shape the course of events following the recent capture of Saddam Hussein include the calls, from the Iraqi Governing Council as well as US president George W Bush, for a death sentence.

Despite expressing reservations that a free and fair trial would actually take place, several quarters suggest that a court hearing of any credible standing would need to encompass a number of elements pertaining to its scope, mode, and location.

Former United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Param Cumaraswamy said the first demand would be to decide where the trial would be held, as this would determine the milieu of the hearing.

"It is important that not only he be given a fair trial, he should also be seen to be given a fair trial. Venue is important so that the public opinion and the environment is not antagonistic towards him," he said when contacted yesterday.

He added that even such countries such as Germany and France should be excluded from the possible list of host-countries, as their opposition to the war compromises their impartiality and thus neutrality of the hearing.

"This is where the United Nations should come in... No doubt Iraq has some eminent juris, but the question is whether they have a proper structure to try Saddam, and whether the environment is conducive," he said.

In addition to the need for sufficient evidence, Param said to ensure the independence and impartiality of the trial, suitable judges to the tribunal should be appointed independently without bowing to pressure from parties with an interest in the case.

"It is important to see that there is no external pressure, and that the appointment of judges to the tribunal be done without the US being involved. The criteria to appoint judges to the International Criminal Court could be applied," he added.

No legitimacy

National Human Rights Society (Hakam) secretary-general Elizabeth Wong said the Iraqi Governing Council was should not host Saddam's trial because they were not chosen by the Iraqi people but appointed by the US occupation authorities.

"What you have in Iraq is a governing council that is not legitimate. I don't thing the council has the legitimacy to try him. This is something that has to be settled (before anything else)," she told malaysiakini.

Elizabeth added that three weeks was not enough to prepare the structures needed for a fair trial, which is "different from street justice".

"I think for a free and fair trial, three weeks is too short a time. We have a lot of emotions running in Iraq and in the United States," she said, adding that Saddam's associates should also stand trial alongside the former Iraqi president for the charges of genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Embarrassing trial

Meanwhile, International Movement for a Just World (Just) president Dr Chandra Muzzafar agreed that all who abetted in Saddam's alleged crimes should be prosecuted, including government figures from Western countries.

"Trying a man for crimes against humanity, (people) would want to know how he was able to do so. Saddam was in some respects a friend of the West until he invaded Kuwait," he said when contacted.

Chandra added that Saddam was not officially designated as a prisoner of war (POW) because that had implications on his isolation and exclusive detention by the American authorities away from international organisations.

He also doubted that justice would truly be served and the Iraqi dictator brought to trial in open court.

"I suspect that some quarters in Iraq as well as the United States and Britain don't want the whole truth to come out.

"They don't want a proper trial, afraid what such a trial would do to the forthcoming elections in the US. If the trial continues beyond November 2004, it would be too embarrassing," he added.