Iraqi court to give verdict in Anfal genocide trial

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - An Iraqi court will deliver its verdict on Sunday for six former high-ranking officials during Saddam Hussein's rule accused of leading a military campaign against ethnic Kurds in the 1980s that killed tens of thousands.

The most prominent is Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majeed, known as Chemical Ali for his reported use of poison gas against opponents. Charges against Saddam, originally the seventh defendant, lapsed when he was executed in December in a separate case.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against five of the accused and the release of a sixth, the former governor of Mosul province in northern Iraq, for lack of evidence.

All six are charged with crimes against humanity, but Majeed also faces the charge of genocide as the alleged architect of the campaign. Sentencing will also take place on Sunday.

International human rights groups said this week that the trial for the 1988 Anfal (Spoils of War) campaign, which prosecutors say killed up to 180,000 ethnic Kurds, had been marred by political interference and procedural flaws.

But Kurds, who make up about 20 percent of Iraq's population, have long sought justice. Their mountainous northern region is still haunted by the seven-month military operation in which mustard gas and nerve agents were used to clear villages.

During Anfal, thousands of villages declared "prohibited areas" were razed and bombed as part of a scorched-earth campaign. Thousands of villagers were deported, many executed.

Majeed admitted during the trial he ordered troops to execute all Kurds who ignored orders to leave their villages. He did not, however, admit to ordering the use of chemical weapons.

The defendants have said Anfal had legitimate military targets -- Kurdish guerrillas who had sided with Iran during the last stage of the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war.

ANFAL JUDGMENT

Washington has sought to hold up the U.S.-backed Iraqi High Tribunal as an example of Iraq's transition to democracy after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 toppled Saddam.

But international legal experts have criticized the conduct of both the Anfal proceedings and the trial that led to Saddam's execution on December 30. In that trial Saddam was convicted over the deaths of 148 Shi'ites in the town of Dujail in the 1980s.

Human Rights Watch said this week an analysis of the Dujail court's judgment revealed "serious factual and legal errors", including a failure to establish the responsibility of Saddam and his fellow accused for the acts of their subordinates.

"This raises concerns such errors will be repeated in the Anfal judgment and it therefore won't withstand scrutiny or the test of time," said Richard Dicker, director of the group's International Justice Programme.

In the Anfal trial the court had "undercut the accuseds right to present a vigorous defense by allowing the prosecution to rely on vague charges and refusing requests to accommodate defense witnesses".

The New York-based International Center for Transitional Justice, which has also been closely monitoring the trial, said the Anfal trial had been "fraught with political interference". In September 2006 the prime minister replaced the chief judge after he made comments which appeared to favor the defendants.

Shi'ites and Kurds, who suffered most under Saddam's Sunni Arab-led administration, have dominated politics since the 2003 U.S. invasion and hold the top posts in the new government.