by Gwendolyn Albert

When the death sentence was issued for the human rights crimes of Saddam Hussein and two of his former aides, European leaders including UK Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke out against their executions. Like many others in the human rights field, I was relieved to see that not even the realpolitik that had dragged the Blair government into the occupation of Iraq could undermine the European Union's dedication to the principle that the death penalty has no place in our world. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour also urged Iraqi authorities not to go through with the executions, regardless of the outcome of the current appeals.

The legitimacy of the Iraqi Tribunal has been criticized since before its inception, with many human rights observers lamenting that the process was not international. Sidiki Kaba, president of the International Federation for Human Rights, said the right to a fair trial had been repeatedly violated during the proceedings.

Amnesty International described the trial as a "shabby affair, marred by serious flaws." Human Rights Watch Director for International Justice Richard Dicker labeled the verdict a "lost opportunity to give a sense of the rule of law." The Economist commented that "to say the trial fell short of international standards would be something of an understatement." The New York Times also quoted Georgetown University expert Jonathan Drimmer as saying the trial did not meet international legal standards. Among the many failings of the trial, three of Saddam's lawyers were murdered during the course of the proceedings.

Rights violations in justice systems worldwide are one of the main arguments against the death penalty. In the United States, it is a matter of record that many of those executed have later been proved not guilty and that death-row prisoners who are poor do not receive fair trials as provided for by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

Most of Europe has weighed in on the Saddam verdict. The Finnish presidency of the EU made it clear that the EU opposes capital punishment in all cases. Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden all expressed their reluctance toward the death sentence, with Danish Member of the European Parliament Ole Krarup calling on international experts to work to overturn Saddam's death sentence; petitions against it are circulating in Italy.

A senior Vatican official lamented the verdict, suggesting it represented the perpetuation of an "eye for an eye" mentality; Switzerland also expressed opposition. On a visit to Iraq, Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet said that the EU has always called on countries to reconsider their use of the death penalty. Terry Davis, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, said enforcing the death penalty would turn Saddam into a martyr. In his view, "a country ravaged by violence and death does not need more violence; and especially not a state-orchestrated execution."

Over the past decade, progress on eradicating the death penalty worldwide has been impressive, with most countries in the world recognizing its moral bankruptcy. But China, Iraq, Japan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, the United States and others still cling to the practice.

Unfortunately, the current Czech government seems not to share Europe's principled opposition to the death penalty. Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexandr Vondra and Defense Minister Jiří­ Šedivý all responded to the death sentence by ignoring human rights considerations and welcoming it loud and clear, saying that, in their view, the trial had been just. Worldwide they seem to have found themselves in the company of only Iran, Kuwait, Poland and, of course, the United States. Polish President Lech Kaczynski, who has unsuccessfully tried to revive the death penalty in the EU, said the death sentence was the "only possible verdict."

The Saddam death penalty has once again highlighted the rift between the new and old EU member states — although not all is unanimous in the EU 15. When Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said that he thought justice had been done by the verdict, he was immediately criticized by other Dutch politicians. Principled opposition to the death penalty prevails in the older democracies (60 percent opposed it in opinion polls), while the "New Europe" member states in general are 60 percent in favor of reintroducing it.

In welcoming the verdict, the message sent by the Czech Republic to the rest of the EU is very clear: Despite the fact that the country lacks the death penalty, the government does not support EU principles on this matter, but prefers to emulate the United States and ignore human rights considerations altogether. That is, unless, as we have seen in other cases, the violations have been committed by the current enemy. This is consistent with the failure to respond to human rights issues domestically and President Václav Klaus's regrettable comments to the Council of Europe on the "dangers" of "human rights-ism," whatever he thinks that is.

Principled opposition to the death penalty is most tested precisely by examples such as that of bringing the former Iraqi dictator to justice, examples in which we affirm that, no matter how horrendous the crime, the state has no right to impose capital punishment. For the most part, Europe has passed this test. So far, Iraq — and the United States — have not.

This is a shame. After all, justice comes not merely when impunity ends for those at the top, but when it ends fairly.