JB/jl

U= RGENT REQUEST FOR PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES

A= GAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

P= ETITIONER :SADDAM HUSSEIN (IRAQ)

27^th December 2006

Executive Sec= retary of the Commission

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Washington, DC USA

Dear Executive Secretary,

We res= pectfully request that you bring to the attention of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights this urgent request for interim measures against the United St= ates of America pursuant to Rule 25 of its Rules of Procedure to prevent the tra= nsfer of the Applicant into the hands of an authority that has indicated it will execute him after what has been deemed by a number of third party organizat= ions an unfair trial.

This r= equest is made by the lawyers of the Applicant, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein= .

The Commission has jurisdiction over this case becau= se the United States of America is a state member of the Organization of American States and the facts of the case indicate violations, inter alia, of articles of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, O.A.S. Res. XXX, adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States (1948), reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82 doc.6 rev.1 at 17 (1992) (hereinaf= ter “American Declaration”). The American Declaration is an authoritative interpretation of states’ du= ties to respect human rights that has been established in the Charter of the Organization of American States, 119 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into for= ce 13 December 1951, amended 721 U.N.T.S. 324, entered into f= orce Feb. 27, 1990, signed by the United States 30 April 1948, ratifie= d 15 June 1951, ratification deposited 19 June 1951.

Acco= rding to article 106 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, 119 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force 13 December 1951, amended 721 = U.N.T.S. 324, entered into force Feb. 27, 1990, signed by the United States 30 April 1948, ratified 15 June 1951, ratification deposit= ed 19 June 1951, and particularly article 20 of the Commission’s Statute, the Commission is mandated “to examine communications submitted to it and any other available information,= to address the government of any member state not a Party to the Convention for information deemed pertinent by this Commission, and to make recommendation= s to it, when it finds this appropriate, in order to bring about more effective observance of fundamental human rights.”

In executing this responsibility the Commission is mandated “to pay particular attention to the observance of the human rights referred to in Articles I, II, XVIII, and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.” These articles create legal obligations for the = United States.

Background of Request=

&= nbsp;

The ap= plicant, the ‘former’ President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was captured on= or around 13 December 2003 in the vicinity of Tikrit, Iraq. Since that time he has been held in the custody of the United States of America.

&= nbsp;

The Ap= plicant currently faces ongoing prosecution in Iraq= for, inter alia, alleged violations of international law he committed while serving as head of government in Iraq. He has been convicted a= t one trial and his appeal rejected on 26^th December 2006.

He was driven from power by an armed attack that constituted an unambiguous violation of international law, as the overwhelming consensus of internatio= nal legal opinion confirms. The Applicant had no involvement, direct or indirec= t, in either the terrorist attacks on the Unit= ed States of America on 11 September 2001, or any act of inter= national terrorism attributed by the United States of America to Al-Qaeda. No links = have ever been attributed to the Applicant between himself and any members of Al-Qaeda. No weapons of mass destructions were ever found in Iraq after his capture and no biological weapons have been discovered to date.

On 28 June 2004, t= he United States of America formally transfer= red their powers as the occupiers of Iraq to the Iraqi Interim Government. The Unit= ed States expressed its intention that the applicant also be transferred to the custody of the Iraqi Government as soo= n as practical.

&= nbsp;

Subseq= uently the Applicant was tried by the Iraqi High Tribunal and after nearly one year was duly convicted. The Trial has been condemned by many International Organizations as having been grossly unfair.

&= nbsp;

The Ap= plicant has been sentenced to death and his appeal dismissed.

Violations of the Inter-American= Human Rights Law

&= nbsp;

The Co= mmission has issued precautionary measures in numerous cases where the death penalty= was threatened by actions of the United States of America that did not constitut= e a fair trial. In this case the United States of America is attempting to mitig= ate its responsibility by transferring of Applicant to another state that has n= ot provided him a fair trial. It remains, however, a legal duty of the United States of America to secure the human rights of individuals over whom it exercises authority = and control in the specific circumstances.[1] The Applicant is currently under the exclusive authority and control of the government of the United States of America and has been so since the govern= ment of the United States of America captured him on or around 13 December 2003. Nevertheless, the Un= ited States of America government has indicat= ed that it will not interfere with the execution of Applicant. The United States of America’s President has even stated that the Applicant should be executed.[2]

&= nbsp;

The Commission has also repeatedly = held that States have an obligation not to execute an individual when they have = not received a fair trial with basic guarantees of due process of law issuing precautionary measures when it appeared that execution will take place after unfair trials. See, Abu-Ali Abdur’ Rahman v. United States, Report Nº 39/03, Petition 136/2002 (2003) and Roberto Moreno Ramos v. United Stat= es, Report Nº 61/03, Petition 4446/02 (2003).

&= nbsp;

The Ap= plicant is subject to such a threat right now because the United States of America may = just transfer him over to a state that is beyond the Commission’s reach th= at has indicated, through the judge responsible for the trial of the Applicant that the Applicant will be executed. The United States of America must= not extradite, or in any other manner whatsoever, surrender legal or physical custody of, individuals to a country or jurisdiction where they face tortur= e, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or execution after an unfair trial.[3] Such an obligation on the United States of America exists in so far as transfer has consequences adversely affecting the enjoyment of an individual’s human rights as long as the consequences are not too rem= ote.

&= nbsp;

This Court has furthermore repeated= ly held that a State is responsible for the violations of an individual’s human rights when the State participates in allowing the individual to fall into the hands of an authority that is likely to violate his or her human rights. See Soering v. United Kingdom, No. 161, 11 E.H.R.R. 439 (7 July 1989); Chahal v. United Kingdom<= /i>, Reports of Judgments and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights= 1996-V 1831, 23 E.H.R.R. 413 (15 November 1996); and D v. United Kingdom, Reports of Judgments and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights 1997-III 778, 24 E.H.R.R. 423 (2 May 1997).<= /p>

Necessity of Interim measures

&= nbsp;

Interi= m measure are necessary in this instance because the unambiguous violations of the Applicant’s human rights already existing and are likely to be even greater; among the right that will be violated is the right to life by the execution of the death penalty that Applicant faces. This threat constitute= s a threat of irreparable and serious harm. The said threat is imminent given t= he Applicant’s appeal having been dismissed summarily.

&nb= sp;

Unambiguous Violation of Applica= nt’s Human Rights

To app= ly the death penalty to the Applicant after such an unfair trial amplifies the seriousness of the human rights violations threatened in this case.<= /p>

The Ap= plicant had been denied legal representation of his choice and the right to challen= ge his transfer. The government of the United States has in the past= even refused to respond to communications from Applicant’s lawyers. These abusive practices seriously jeopardized the right to a fair trial and indic= ated that the resulting conviction and execution that had been promised by the President of the Iraqi Cou= rt materialized and the result of which was of an unfair trial.

&= nbsp;

To cite but one other peculiarity T= he Applicant faced a trial for charges of having committed, early in the 1980s, acts constituting crimes against humanity, following a failed attempt on the App= licant’s life in the al-Dujail region of Iraq. At the time when the alleged acts took place the ‘international’ offense of crimes against humanity was not a part of the criminal offences prescribed by the Penal Code or any other Iraqi criminal law. Crimes against humanity were introduced into Iraqi law in December 2003, when the US led occupation authority in Iraq issued, through a legisl= ative order, a statute establishing an Iraqi Special Tribunal. The purpose = of the Tribunal was to prosecute those who had engaged in certain types of cri= mes during the reign of the Appellant. The statute included an article defining crimes against humanity over which the newly established Tribunal = had jurisdiction.

In October 2005, Iraq issued Law Number 10 which abolished the 2003 statute but contained similar provisions establishing “The Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT)المحكمة الجنائية العراقية العليا ̶= 1;. Section two of article 1 of Law Number 10 gave the SICT subject matter jurisdiction limited to prosecuting certain criminal offenses that may have occurred between July 17, 1968 and May 1, 2003. Among these offenses were ‘= crimes against humanity’ as defined in article 12 of that law. Article= 40 stipulates that the law shall come into effect on the date of its publicat= ion in the official gazette. The law was published in the official gazette on October 18, 2005.&nbs= p; The Applicant faced a trial chamber of the SICT that was in effect asked to con= vict the Applicant for crimes allegedly committed, according to the prosecution,= some twenty years before article 12 of Law Number 10 came into effect.

The Indictment that the Applicant faced was a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by = Iraq on January 25, 1971.

Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights s= tipulates as follows: “No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on accou= nt of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall= a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.”

The American Convention on Human Rights, OAS Treaty Series, No. 36 entered into force on the 18<= sup>th July 1978, and which the United States of America is b= ound clearly states in Article 9: “= ;No one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a cri= minal offence, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed.”=

Irrep= arable Harm

Once t= he Applicant has been turned transferred to the Government of Iraq it will be impossible for the Commission to exercise its jurisdiction and the Applican= t will be subject to the human rights violations described above.

&= nbsp;

Due to= the expedited Appeal and upholding of the sentence by the Trail Court in Baghdad, the time frame continues to re= main extremely critical. The Applicant has acted in an expedient manner as possi= ble taking into consideration that the first opportunity of any meeting with his lawyers in Januar= y 4^th, 2007. The matter being urgent this Application has been lodged = in the manner prescribed.

&= nbsp;

Consid= ering that irreparable damage to the applicant will be inflicted by said transfer to an authority that will subject him to capital punishment the Commission is ask= ed to make an order of provisional measures with immediate effect prohibiting transfer of custody until the case has been decided on its merits

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&nb= sp;           S= erious Harm

The fa= ct that the Applicant is sentenced to the death penalty subsequent to an unfair tri= al is sufficient to demonstrate the serious harm that will result from the fai= lure to adopt interim measures against the government of the United States of America.

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&nb= sp;           I= mminent Harm

The Un= ited States of America and the Iraqi Government have expressed the intention that custody of Saddam Hussein will ultimately be transferred to the Iraqi Government which will carry out the sentence of execution. His unfair trial= and execution could take place at any time if such a transfer takes place.

&= nbsp;

Conclusion=

For th= e above reasons we respectfully request that the Commission immediately indicate interim measures that the United States of America should respect, includin= g, ordering the government of the United States of America not to transfer the applicant out of their control and to take all necessary measures to ensure= the human rights of that the Applicant.

Yours Sincerely

STUDIO = LEGALE INTERNAZIONALE

GIOVANN= I DI STEFANO      =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;         KHALIL AL-DOULAMI

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

=

=