Mosul Court Sets Example For Independent Iraqi Justice

A court in Mosul, staffed by anonymous judges who operate courts that exclude Westerners as observers, has set an example for an independent judiciary in Iraq. Carefully guided by American military advisors but only after the adjudication of cases, the tribunal has established itself as a clean and impartial standard by which other courts can pattern themselves:

Last year, the criminal justice system here had nearly ground to a halt. Intimidated judges were refusing to hear trials. Some judges were allowing suspected insurgents to go free.
Then American advisers in this northern Iraqi city made a proposal: The Iraqis should bring in judges from Baghdad who would serve anonymously. And local officials and the chief judge in Baghdad agreed.
Now U.S. military officers and State Department officials here tout the Mosul program as a major success and a model for the rest of the country. But the Americans also acknowledge that the Iraqis’ desire to rid the court of foreign influence has led to a situation they never anticipated. At the end of the first day of its first session in December, Major Crimes Court 15 banned Westerners from its proceedings.
So while the judges depend on the United States to help them with matters as basic as traveling safely from Baghdad, the Americans who hope to persuade the Iraqis to replicate the court across the country have no way of knowing firsthand what goes on inside. Instead, they meet with the judges in military-style “after-action reviews” that last an hour or so a few times a week.

The creation of an independent and unintimidated judiciary is a top priority for stabilizing Iraq, even before economic reconstruction and pacification. Every other issue flows through the court system; militias and insurgents have to be tried and convicted in a credible process, while trade and commerce rely on the civil judicial system to settle disputes amicably and definitively. Without an effective and independent system of justice, the Iraqis cannot build a civil society in the wake of strongman rule — and will gravitate to other strongmen to get justice, which is why the militias retain some popularity despite their violence and intimidation.
Having judges serve anonymously might not be the best way to serve justice in the long run. In the short term, though, it makes sense. Judges who have their identities shielded will not fall prey to terrorists, and can therefore decide cases more dispassionately and fairly — fair to both the defendant and the Iraqi community.
And that seems to be the experience in Mosul. The tribunal has heard 73 cases already from a large backlog, and acquitted 33 of the defendants who have appeared. That’s a much higher acquittal rate than one finds in many US courts, which indicates that defendants get a fair shake.
The Washington Post met with the anonymous judges, and the interview showed the men to be courageous but not foolish. The Americans wanted some of their investigators to go to Tall Afar, still experiencing problems with insurgents, but they will not send them until their safety can be assured. One joked that he took the assignment in Mosul to escape his two wives, and another wanted to know why Americans keep asking them the same questions every week.
He probably doesn’t read the American press. We’re mostly used to that here.