Now, more than a dozen years later, the former Iraqi dictator and six co-defendants are being tried for the mass killings. This is the second trial for Hussein; a verdict in the first trial, for the deaths of over 100 Shiites in the early ’80s, is expected in October. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett discussed the case with PHR’s deputy director Susannah Sirkin, who oversaw the original investigation. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: What evidence did Physicians for Human Rights find that chemical weapons were used during the Anfal Campaign?
Susannah Sirkin: [We] sent a team to southern Turkey back in 1988 when tens of thousands of Kurds fled northern Iraq in the wake of what they said were chemical weapons attacks. At the time, Saddam Hussein and his government denied chemical weapons had been used and refused access to a United Nations team that wanted to investigate the allegations on the ground. After interviewing dozens of the refugees, we concluded—based on self-reported symptoms—that mustard gas had certainly been used and that an unknown nerve agent was also very likely used that would have caused muscular spasms and, soon after, death.
What symptoms did the refugees describe and how did they survive exposure to such a deadly nerve agent?
They had been some distance from the bomb they described as being dropped from the air. Those who were closer to the bomb died. The refugees described the bodies they saw as they ran away. They said the people who died turned black and blood-tinged fluid seeped from their noses and mouths. Their skin turned thick and leathery. They also described how small animals died within minutes around them. The people we’d interviewed had somehow survived but the symptoms they described confirmed to us the use of mustard gas: eye irritation, skin blistering, throat burning, dizziness, pain from breathing, shortness of breath.
What did you do with the information?
We filled out a report based on the findings and provided testimony in Congress. We called the use of the weapons a crime against humanity. But that was at the time when the United States was essentially an ally of Iraq. We called for sanctions against the regime for the use of these weapons.
What happened?
Not much, from Congress. They sort of absorbed the information and moved on. There were no sanctions placed against Iraq at this time. It wasn’t just the United States—the rest of the world didn’t do much either. There were expressions of concern, but no serious response.
About how many people do you estimate were killed in the chemical attacks?
I don’t think anyone knows precisely how many were killed by chemical weapons versus other executions—like from gunshots. This was a long campaign. But Human Rights Watch estimates 100,000 Kurds were killed during Anfal.
You also went back and tested the soil and exhumed some of the bodies a few years later, right?
In 1992, we went to one particular village, Birjinni. Our team, along with a team from what is now Human Rights Watch, exhumed a number of bodies from the graves and collected some of the soil samples because this village was in the area from which we had interviewed refugees four years earlier. We sent the samples to the United Kingdom Chemical and Biological Defense Establishment of Porton Down in England [a government agency]. At the time we couldn’t get a U.S. government lab to take the samples. Some months later, the results came back that there were traces—distinctive byproducts—of mustard gas and sarin, a nerve gas, which causes convulsions and twitching of muscles and can, within minutes, cause death by suffocation. It was widely reported at the time because this was significant, incontrovertible evidence; it really proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that mustard gas and sarin had been used. We all hoped that one day this regime would be held accountable in a court of law for the egregious violation of human rights and international law. But at the time, we didn’t expect that would happen anytime soon.
Now it has. Saddam Hussein is being charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Is the evidence you gathered being used in the trial?
We’re not officially involved at this point. But the evidence we gathered may well be used. We’re making it available. The information has become very relevant.
From the evidence you’ve seen, do you think there is a strong case on all the charges against him?
I would say so. There’s no question that the evidence we compiled shows attacks against entire villages resulted in the deaths of men and women and children; these were not deaths occurring in the course of military combat. And these were many dozens of villages. Using chemical weapons means that the targets are completely indiscriminate. Under any definition, it’s a crime against humanity. You can’t control where it’s going to go—it depends on where the wind blows.
How does it feel to see this trial now?
It’s complicated. Iraq is still undergoing so much violence and instability. Anyone would prefer this trial occur in a time of stability and recovery of the entire population and that the ability of the court to gather all information thoroughly and carefully would be greater than it appears to be. But certainly it’s important that all this evidence be made available to the entire world and to validate the claims of the victims for the past 18 years.
Evidence collected by your organization is being used in another war crimes trial that started last week against seven high-ranking Bosnian Serb officers accused of being responsible for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in which more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were executed. What evidence did you collect there?
We conducted the first major forensic investigation of mass graves in the Srebrenica area at the request of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We sent dozens of scientists there in 1996 who exhumed the mass graves for investigative and forensic purposes.
What did they find?
There were bodies removed that had hands tied behind the back and single gunshot wounds. Every grave we worked on was demonstrated to have been the scene of a serious war crime. All the evidence was turned over to the tribunal.
These were systematic executions?
Yes, and many of the bodies have been identified. They were mostly men and boys, even old men. The women and children were removed in buses and the men were sent off on this march separately and snipers attacked them all along the way. Many of them were moved together and killed execution style en masse and then put into these mass graves. The main graves exhumed in 1996 had 200 to 400 bodies in a grave. It was an extremely challenging work from an anthropologic perspective. It was extremely grim … Thousands of pieces of evidence had to be catalogued. And that led to another project. We began to ask: we’re exhuming the graves to gather evidence but then what about the bodies? Who will identify them? So we started a humanitarian project to identify them. It was a massive undertaking, but we felt it was the families’ right to know what happened to their loved ones and to be able to bury them. We interviewed thousands of family members. It’s still going on today. But the International Commission on Missing Persons has since taken it over.
Are you doing any work in Iraq now?
We did do early assessments of mass graves in Iraq with a view to convince the [new] government to address the problems of mass graves. But then the security situation became untenable for us. That’s unfortunately on hold now.
Besides forensic science, what else does your group do?
The mobilization of forensic scientists is a very specific program and, through it, we have the ability to provide evidence of violations or human rights abuses. But we also have physicians, public-health workers, nurses and psychologists. Health professionals can have a profound impact by using the power of their profession to change public policy, to protect people’s rights, and to promote and protect the right to health. And when their credibility and expertise and ethics can be mobilized together, it can be a powerful force of change.
