Is Saddam Hussein getting a fair trial?

The trial of the former Iraqi dictator charged with some of the worst human rights crimes of recent times has been adjourned until October 9. The latest chief judge, Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa, suspended proceedings when Saddam Hussein and his six co-defendants were thrown out of court this week after a shouting match which almost drowned the judge's orders.

Ten months after it began under the most intense of media spotlights, the trial is in chaos, with little hope of improvement until it finally staggers to a close.

When will it end and what is the likely outcome?

Contrary to the practice of justice elsewhere in the world, the verdict appears not to be in doubt - the former President of Iraq will almost certainly be convicted of a number of crimes which carry the death penalty.

The Iraqi Government has publicly declared him guilty and has removed judges who did not overtly support this belief. There have even been discussions among politicians on whether he is entitled to die by firing squad, a privilege of the Iraqi officer corps, or hanging, the fate of more common criminals.

No one knows when proceedings will end as the prosecutors say they are still considering further charges.

What are the charges so far?

Saddam and his co-defendants are accused of genocide over Operation Anfal against the Kurds in 1987-88, in which 180,000 people were killed, many by chemical weapons. They had already faced charges of responsibility for the deaths of 140 people in 1982 in Dujail, massacred after an attempt on Saddam's life. The verdict on Dujail is expected in the next six weeks.

The expected conviction will not be the end, however. Other cases including the gassing of 5000 Kurds in Halabjah in the 1987-88 campaign will be the basis for future charges.

How has the case descended into chaos?

In January, chief judge Rizgar Amin resigned after complaints that he failed to keep order. Five weeks later his successor, Sayeed al-Hammashi, was removed after it was disclosed he was a former Ba'ath Party member.

Next came Judge Abdel-Rahman who, despite being from Halabjah, was deemed to be impartial. He left complaining of political interference and was succeeded by Abdullah al-Amiri, who caused consternation by telling Saddam, "You were never a dictator."

Seven people connected with the trial have been killed and one lawyer has fled abroad.

Saddam's chief defence lawyer, Khamis al-Obaidi, a prominent Sunni public figure, was abducted, tortured and murdered by men claiming to be from the Interior Ministry. Days before the trial, investigating judge Raad Juhi survived an assassination attempt.

How is the defence being conducted?

Defence lawyers are boycotting the proceedings in protest at the sacking of Judge al-Amiri. Judge al-Khalifa has declared they will be replaced by court-appointed lawyers unless they reappear when the case reconvenes.

What is the view of international jurists?

There have been repeated protests and calls for the trial to be moved to a neutral venue. Ramsay Clarke, who appeared briefly alongside Saddam's defence team, asked for this, as did Richard Goldstone, the first prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague.

After Judge al-Amari's dismissal, Richard Dicker, an observer for Human Rights Watch, complained: "The Government has not only interfered with the court's independence, but greatly undermined the court's own appearance of neutrality and objectivity. The transfer of the judge sends a chilling message to all judges: Toe the line or risk removal."

What did the occupiers hope to achieve?

One aim of the Iraqi Government and its United States sponsors was to display the feared former strongman in a position of humiliation and defeat. In this they have failed. From the first day he appeared in the dock, lean and alert after his spell in captivity, Saddam has been the central figure in this courtroom drama, dominating hearings, seeing off judges.

For most Iraqis, the trial is not of uppermost concern. His death, when it comes, will be highly symbolic but also one among thousands. Few in Iraq ever had illusions that this was about justice rather than retribution.

What will this mean for future war crimes trials?

It would wrong to draw too many inferences for other trials, such as that of former Liberian ruler Charles Taylor, who will appear before an international court under an entirely different legal code.

The trial of former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic drew strong criticism but was still based on an international legal code. Saddam's trial has suffered from various differing interpretations of the new Iraqi legal code.

Both defence lawyers and international consultants have protested that the judges have ignored accepted tenets of international law such as allowing the defence to cross-examine witnesses properly.

- INDEPENDENT