Autres matériels/Other materials...

English:

CPDE Center for Peace and Disarmament Education

Linza Summer School Narrative Report

The afternoon session continued with the presentation of Mr. Jordan Daci M.A “Organized     Crime and the European Union, the case of Albania”.

Mr. Daci initiated his presentation by generically defining the concept of Organized Crime. Then Mr. Daci went on describing the conception of the connections and intertwined existence of organized crime and the state as well as an overview of the situation of organized crime in Europe and in particular in Albania.

Mr. Daci presented the international and regional engagements that Albania has ratified and signed in the field of combating organized crime, having a focus on the agreements with the EU such as the Stability Pact and SAA. Mr. Daci displayed the importance of fulfilling the obligations laid out in the agreements, presenting them in the prospective of political criteria, economical criteria and the obligations and consequences that source from EU membership.

Mr. Daci continued explaining in detail the structure and work of institutions such as EUROJUST and EUROPOL as well as presenting more deeply the part of the Stability Pact that deals with organized crime. Additionally was presented the progress made from Albania in this direction. In the end Mr. Daci answered to questions raised from the participants.

Mr. Jordan Dacihas a BA in Law from the University of Tirana and a M.A in Criminal Law. He is currently working as a Jurist in the Foreign Relations Department of the Albanian Ministry of Finance.

............... 

Alban Daci

Was the death penalty for the former President Saddam Hussein the right one?

The sentenced to death penalty of the former president Saddam Hussein has caused different reactions in western countries. The United States of America have accepted without any reserve the sentenced to death penalty of Saddam Hussein.

The President of the United States has declared to the media that: "the sentence to death penalty of the Saddam Hussein was a great success for the new Iraqi’s democracy and for its constitutional government”. Whilst, the State Secretary, Condoleezza Rice says that: “this sentence is a happy appeal to all Iraqi People to demonstrate that the law, rules over the fear.

European Union Member States with the exception of the Great Britain, have opposed the death penalty, and have not considered such sentence as the only possible solutions concerning the democratic future of Iraq.

The Foreign Minister of the Great Britain has considered the sentence to death penalty as a great success, which gives end the cruel crimes committed by Saddam Hussein, at the same ending a long process based on clear evidences that are made transparent to the public through the media.

A very different statement has been made by Romano Prodi who opposed the death penalty, which according to him, mirrors again the judgment of the entire international community on Saddam Hussein. He expressed that: "Our tradition and ethic are far way form the death penalty”.

The Spanish Prime minister Jose Luis Rodrigues Zapatero, convinced expressed that the sentence to death penalty of Saddam Hussein will not stop the violence in Iraq, by also pointing the finger to “the great mistake” of the military intervention in the year 2003.

French foreign minister in his statement remembered the position of France and of the European Union against the death penalty, considering such position as “a constant position regarding its application”.

The same line is maintained by the Germany, who joyfully expressed its happiness that the Saddam’s Hussein crimes “have been trialed by a Court”, but at the same time has remembered the existence within the European Union of an “opposition” against the death penalty”.

By analyzing these opinions can we express that the West is divided?!

Indeed, many analysts have positively affirmed this opinion. However, I would personally say no, as long as the abolishment of the death penalty has not a universal character and does not constitutes a general norm of the International Customary Law, this means that the West have never been unified through a common decision regarding the application or the abolishment of the death penalty.

According to this analysis, not only the West as whole, but also specifically United States would be divided if we would take into account the relationships within the Federation where some states do apply the death penalty and some do not.

In the case of the sentence to death penalty of Saddam Hussein, I would say that United States of America have acted in full compliance with the International law and have not created even a single case of a international “Ilecito”, because they accepted to trial Saddam Hussein before an Iraqi Court, where all the judges were Iraqis.

Indeed, referring to the resolution of the General Assembly of December 6, 1948 emphasis that:
“The approval of the Convention against Genocide has raised the issue of the desire and the possibility to trial the persons before a competent international court”, we may question why they did not accept to trial Saddam Hussein before an International Criminal Court, with selected judges of international level?

In this perspective, my analysis would be:

Firstly, the Americans did not want that their personal triumph be transferred to Europe or to any other international court where the verdict of European states would have to be taking into account, as long as they did not have any concrete military, political or diplomatic support regarding their military intervention of the year 2003.

As a result, if Saddam Hussein would have been trialed before a special international court, his punishment would have been a life sentence rather than a death penalty, taking into accounts the fact that the latter is contrary to the European principle.

Secondly, they trialed Saddam Hussein before an Iraqi Court, where all the judges have been Iraqis in order to show to the world and Iraqi People themselves, that all cruel dictators such as Saddam Hussein will have the same end. Furthermore, that wanted to certify the fact that the United States of America are not invaders, but exporters of the democracy, who brought to the Iraqi citizens the hope and the desire of freedom, after a cruel regime such as the one exercised by Saddam Hussein.

This would be better certified quoting the Gorge .W.Bush: "The sentence to death penalty of Saddam Hussein is a great success for the new Iraqi democracy and its constitutional government”.

Accepting "de facto” and "de jure " the fact that Saddam Hussein was trialed before an Iraqi Court and not an International Special Court, thus makes also its final judgment against him legal and acceptable as long as the judgment has been based on the laws into force of the Iraqi State.

The Constitution of Iraq foresees the application of the death penalty for these kinds of crimes.
Saddam Hussein was a war criminal; who has committed genocide and has fought wars that have killed thousand of persons.

According to the Article 4, of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
“Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals”

Therefore it is right that he was properly senteced for the crimes he had committed.

Concerning the issue whether he deserved to be sentence to death penalty or not, this according to my analysis is a problem of Baghdat, because the prosess took place before an Iraqi Court with Iraqi judges, right in Iraq. 

............... 

french version[ en français ]

0/10 - 0 vote