Great resource, and a great step in transparency.

What's still amazing to me is that there is no "standard" of proof in Iraqi law. For example, in criminal courts in the US, a prosecutor has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" (around 80%) that the defendant committed the crime. In a civil case, the standard is simply a "preponderance of the evidence" (51%). This essentially acknowledges the realistic fact that evidence might not prove someone definitely innocent or guilty, but that as a society, we are willing to accept these various levels of proof, and the risk of erroneous judicial decisions that result. The flip side is that it codifies the standard, which increases reliability.

In Iraqi law, you are either guilty, or innocent. It's black or white. I had the opportunity to speak with the judge (Ra'id Juhi Hamadi Al-Sa'edi) that presided over the trial of Saddam Hussein (at great risk to his own life), and the topic came up. I don't get the sense that the standard was "100%" (e.g., the evidence proved with complete certainty that you were guilty), but rather that it was largely left up to judicial discretion.

Here's an example. In a US criminal court, if the prosecutor proved 65% that the defendant was guilty, you'd be let off (as the standard of proof is higher). In Iraq, if the judge thought you were guilty, you'd be behind bars.

Sorry for the off topic rant, but it's a random fact that I learned and continues to amaze me. On a side note, Ra'id Juhi Hamadi Al-Sa'edi is an impressive man, and made with a strong moral fiber. While the system is very different in Iraq, the rule of law is continuing to progress.