|Interview with Giovanni Di Stefano||
L'avvocato Giovanni Di Stefano
1) Lawyer Di Stefano, you are directing a International Legal Studio and you are the official council for the defence of Saddam Hussein, whilst, at the same time, you have received an assignment from the present U.S. Bush administration. What exactly does this job entail? Do you think that you have received this assignment due to great respect for your work? And, in your opinion, do you believe that your possible success regarding Saddam's case will cause you to be respected also by the White House?
The United States District Court of Columbia appointed me to accept service for Saddam Hussein which is a ‘backdoor’ way for the Bush Administration to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not executed at least for the moment. The actual per se execution of Saddam Hussein would not only cause a bloodbath in Iraq but inflame and already volotile Middle East. The civil case in Washington DC can be used and is being used to ensuure that the US do not deliver Saddam Hussein to Iraqi for execution. Does that mean that the Bush Administration has faith in me? They better have faith in themselves and their justice system more!
2) You were a personal advisor and then council for the defence of the Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic and now you are Saddam Hussein's lawyer. Are these cases different entailing different strategies, or similar to each other?
The allegations in brief are familiar but Saddam and Slobo were and remain different men save that they BOTH have an undying love for their country. Milosevic was tried before a properly constituted court whereas Saddam has a circus of a court that in non compliant with even the basic of legal standards.
3) Lawyer, you are fighting in order to stop the hanging of the ex-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein: how do you believe that you will achieve this goal? Would it possible, for example, so as to definitively avoid it, to deliver Saddam to a third country with greater guarantees of neutrality and where the death penalty is not enforced?
The Geneva Convention allows an ex occupying force to maintain custody and/or execution of an indicted person as for example the case of HESS [The successor of Hitler, who paid the life imprisonment in Germany, note of editing]. Saddam will not be executed. If his sentence of imprisonment is confirmed he will serve that in one of three countries [The reference is to Iraq, U.S.A. and United Kingdom, note of editing].
4) In the eventuality of a Court of Justice outside Iraq, could the involvement of Arab and Kurd lawyers also be possible, so as to involve the original country of the accused in this matter?
The case would have been far more credible if it was heard out of Iraq where at least it would have been SAFE. It would have mattered not the jurists or the judges. Al Maghari from Lybia [One of the agents of Gheddafi, accused of an attack to a civil airplane in the skies of Scoltland, crashed in 1988, killing also some inhabitants of the little town Lockerbie, note of editing] had a ‘fair’ trial in The Hague with Scottish Judges. Saddam should have been tried in Italy, UK, Germany, even the US with Iraqi Judges. At least the trial would have been transparent and fair. Instead it was like a circus.
5) In your opinion, were the court proceedings held in Baghdad iniquitous? And if so, why?
It was by no means a proper or fair process for the reasons stated.
6) How many lawyers does Saddam have, and what are their nationalities?
Myself and one other lawyer as my colleague (myself Italian) my colleague USA and in Iraq Khalil from the Iraqi Bar. There are other advisors from Jordan and Mr Clarke from the USA.[This article was published on these Italian journals: Caserta24ore, Deasport, Corriere di Aversa e Giugliano, Rinascita, Ciaoeuropa, and on the Kurdish newspaper RNN (Rojname News Network, journal writed in nine languages)]