BAGHDAD - Judges
have postponed the verdict in the war crimes trial of Saddam Hussein, the court
announced Tuesday, a delay that comes amid growing concern that any ruling would
inflame Iraq's deadly sectarian divide.
The tribunal faces a dilemma: A death sentence
for the former leader could enrage Sunnis, while anything less is sure to spark
Shiite fury.
It is a far cry from the hopes of many U.S. and
Iraqi officials when the trial began nearly a year ago. They touted the tribunal
as a way to help heal Iraq's divisions by exposing atrocities during Saddam's
regime, establishing justice and opening the door for reconciliation.
"I think it would be a positive, not a
negative," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Monday when asked about the
prospect of a verdict, which had been expected on Oct. 16. "It would just bring
closure to a chapter that was an unhappy and unpleasant and particularly vicious
regime."
In the past year, however, Shiite-Sunni
divisions have grown, with thousands killed by Sunni insurgents and death squads
from both Islamic sects.
After nine months of often stormy court
sessions, many Sunnis — who are a minority in Iraq but were dominant under
Saddam — still see the tribunal as a show trial by the new Shiite leadership to
take revenge on the ousted president.
"There is sympathy with Saddam, especially
because what we see now makes many nostalgic for him," said Khalaf al-Alayan, a
Sunni parliament member, referring to the violence in Iraq since Saddam's ouster
by U.S.-led forces in April 2003. "So there could be a reaction if there is a
death sentence."
Meanwhile, Shiites have made clear they will
only accept execution for the leader whose regime persecuted their majority
community and the Kurds.
"Anything less than a death sentence will be a
neglect of justice," Hassan al-Suneid, a Shiite lawmaker. "I think it could be a
disaster."
Saddam and seven co-defendants face possible
execution by hanging if found guilty on charges of crimes against humanity over
a crackdown on Shiites in the town of Dujail launched in 1982. A five-judge
panel will decide the ruling by a majority vote.
The judges adjourned July 27 to consider their
ruling, and had been expected to announce it Oct. 16.
Court spokesman Raid Juhi told the Associated
Press a session will be held Oct. 16, but it "will not be for the verdict. It's
for the judges' review of the evidence." He did not say when the verdict would
be issued.
A court official, speaking on condition of
anonymity because he was not allowed to release the information, said the
verdict could be put off until late October or early November.
Juhi did not link the delay to worries over
tensions in Iraq. He said the judges have been reviewing the evidence and
testimony from the trial to determine "whether it is complete or is lacking." He
said the judges will decide whether they need more information.
The intense review of the evidence aimed to
ensure that the verdict — which will be accompanied by a report explaining the
court's reasoning — is airtight and can be fully justified in the face of
criticism from either side, the court official said.
A guilty verdict for Saddam is widely expected
— but the official suggested there were differences over what sentence to impose
and that the judges were aware that violence was possible either way.
"The verdict mustn't be weakly supported, it
has to be accepted and not raise doubts," al-Suneid said.
The Dujail trial, which began Oct. 19, is the
first for Saddam. A second trial of the former Iraqi leader and six other
co-defendants began Aug. 21 on genocide charges for their alleged roles in a
1987-1988 crackdown against Kurdish rebels.
The genocide trial was adjourned last week
until Monday after a stormy session during which the chief judge expelled all
the defendants amid a boycott of the trial by the defense lawyers.
Saddam and his co-defendants can appeal any
verdict, but if a sentence is upheld Iraqi law says it must be carried out
within 30 days after appeals are finished.
The Dujail trial heard extensive testimony from
Shiite survivors of the crackdown, recounting torture while in prison and the
deaths of loved ones. The crackdown was sparked by a 1982 assassination attempt
on Saddam.
Hundreds of Dujail residents were arrested,
some tortured to death, and 148 Shiites were sentenced to death for involvement
in the attempt to kill Saddam. The prosecution argued they were executed after a
fake trial and that the crackdown aimed to punish the entire town.
The key evidence against Saddam was a series of
documents signed by him — the order for the 148 to be put on trial, the approval
of their death sentences and an approval of rewards for several intelligence
officers.
The defense argued the crackdown was justified
in response to the assassination attempt, a feeling shared by many Sunnis.
"If a police car passes and gets shot at, what
does it do? Doesn't it shoot back? So how can a president respond when there's
an attempt to kill him?" Sunni lawmaker al-Alayan said.
Saddam's defenders also maintain the documents
don't constitute a crime against humanity since he was performing his
constitutional role in ordering suspects put on trial, then signing off on the
verdict.
Simone Monasebian, a former prosecutor in the
U.N. war crimes tribunal for Rwanda, said the judges may hope for a change in
the law to enable a stay of execution on the first verdict until the second
trial's verdict is delivered.
"Politically, (the judges) are not ready (to
rule) because of their fear of the insurgency. Procedurally they are not ready
because they might have to execute him before the next trial is completed," said
Monasebian, an international law professor at New Jersey's Seton Hall
University. "And thirdly they are not ready (because) they haven't reviewed the
evidence."
