Not an Iraqi Code SME either, but ...
The Iraqi judge's statement seems correct in one way, but incomplete. Legal stuff (and governance issues in general) are difficult unless discussed in a common language.
Anyway, re: Saddam's trial, I Googled up Did the Dujail Trial Meet International Standards of Due Process ?, which has this to say:
Quote:
While Far from Perfect, the Saddam Trial Was Not Fundamentally Unfair
By Michael P. Scharf
Cite as: Michael P. Scharf & Gregory S. McNeal, Saddam on Trial: Understanding and Debating the Iraqi High Tribunal 162 (2006).
....
Not an American Court
But we also have to keep in mind that this is not an American court. Although the Iraqi High Tribunal Statute and Rules adopt the fundamental due process safeguards enumerated in Article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, they also make clear that the Tribunal is to be governed by Iraqi Criminal Procedure, which is based on the civil law model prevalent in the Middle East. While we may not be accustomed to a system that does not provide for disposition of preliminary motions until the final Judgment, that allows the defendant to conduct cross examination along side his lawyer, or that issues a detailed charging instrument at the end of the prosecution’s case -- that does not mean the IHT process violates international fair trial standards.
Take, for example, Professor Heller’s assertion that the trial is unfair because the Tribunal’s Statute does not require the Court to find Saddam and his co-defendants guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instead, Article 19 of the IHT’s Statute merely provides that “the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty before the Court.” Although the Statute does not spell out the test for proving guilt, the Statute must be read together with the Iraqi Criminal Code and practice, under which a Judge must be “satisfied of a defendant’s guilt” -- the traditional standard which civil law judicial systems (like France and Holland) employ, and a phrase that the IHT judges told me is functionally equivalent to the American “beyond reasonable doubt standard.” It should also be noted here that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to define what “beyond reasonable doubt” means and has held that American courts do not have to provide any definition of this amorphous phrase in their instructions to a jury in a criminal case. See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994).
Cf., my reference in my prior post to the interplay between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and thev "presumption of innocence".
Best I could do via a rapid search - "iraqi criminal code" "reasonable doubt".
Regards
Mike
PS: Don't pull that "mere law student" stuff again. If you are engaging in a lawyer's argument, make that argument - whether you are a lawyer or not.
How cases are really decided
Quite some years ago, a rather famous judge was asked about his process in deciding cases. He said he read through the briefs and record; then put them on the shelf for a while. He then went back and read them again; and again put them back on the shelf. Finally, decision time came. He was asked whether he then analysed the facts and law and roughed out the arguments. No, he said. I simply look at the shelf until I get a "feeling" for who should win and who should lose. Then I write my opinion to justify that result. An honest judge.
And then there was a case before one of our Michigan appellate courts, which was just bad. The legal positions were bad on both sides; the clients had no redeeming values; and the lawyers were worse. The three judges were walking up the stairs from the courtroom to their offices, griping about how to decide this mutt. The decision was reached for each of them to fling the briefs down the stairs and the one which went furthest would win. Done and a per curium decision (one liner) was filed.
Nonetheless, we (lawyers) have to play the game and speak in terms of the traditional facts, law, analysis trilogy. Which, BTW, is probably more often how judges decide cases; but there are the "mystical" exceptions. :D
Regards
Mike