True enough. Just last week a tribunal system was set-up. It was also criticised by Human Rights Watch.
“Iraqis rightly insist that trials for past atrocities are of the utmost importance,” said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. “But any tribunal set up to try these crimes should be fair and effective. Justice must be done and be seen to be done.”
Human Rights Watch welcomes the provision of the law that allows for the possibility of appointing non-Iraqi trial and appeals chamber judges with experience in trying serious human rights crimes if the Iraqi Governing Council deems it necessary. The law also includes some important protections for the rights of the accused and applies definitions of international crimes largely consistent with international standards, Human Rights Watch said.
At the same time, key provisions are lacking to ensure credible and legitimate trials, Human Rights Watch said. The law does not require that judges and prosecutors have experience working on complex criminal cases and cases involving serious human rights crimes. Nor does the law permit the appointment of non-Iraqi prosecutors or investigative judges, even if they have relevant experience investigating and prosecuting serious human rights crimes.
“Up until now, the most complex trials in Iraq have lasted no more than a few days,” said Dicker. “The law should require that international judges with expertise trying serious human rights crimes sit on the bench alongside Iraqis. This would assist, not replace, Iraqi judges in ensuring justice for the horrific crimes committed.”
The news would be if Chalabi couldn’t attend the trial due to his required presence in a Jordanian courtroom.
Finally, this article is confusing. Was it a fake beard torn off by soldiers, then reapplied during the medical check-up, only to be torn off again? Or was it real and the writer of this story fed an inaccurate account of the capture?