Even though evidence is certain to be compelling, with prosecutors aiming to evoke the horrors of mass deaths and the stench of chemical bombs, analysts fear the tribunal will be unable to cope with the complex case.

"There is strong evidence of genocide against the former regime, but based on our observations from the Dujail massacre trial, we believe the court is ill-equipped to conduct a trial of such a magnitude against a head of a state," Nehal Bhuta of the New York-based watchdog Human Rights Watch told AFP.

At least 100 000 Kurds from northern Iraq were killed during the "Anfal Campaign" in 1987-1988, named after an Arabic term for "spoils".

Iraqi prosecutors will attempt to prove that in ordering Anfal — during which an estimated 3000 Kurdish villages in northern Iraq were destroyed — Saddam was guilty of genocide.

Claims of counter-insurgency

The former regime says the Anfal campaign was a necessary counter-insurgency operation to bring Kurds under control, as by 1986, with Baghdad under strain because of its war with Iran, large swathes of the Kurdish region had become free of central government.

The prosecution will charge that on Saddam's orders, Iraqi troops set out to quell separatist sentiment among the Kurds by systematically targeting the civilian population.

"There is enough evidence of genocide as the then Iraqi government created so-called prohibited zones in Iraq with the order to execute anyone found living in those zones," Bhuta said.

"The boundaries of those zones corresponded to the areas of northern Iraq populated almost exclusively by rural Kurds and the claim that those killed from the zones were insurgents is not credible because young children were among the tens of thousands of Anfal victims."

Starting in 1987, Saddam authorised his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid — or "Chemical Ali" — to bring the area back under state control.

Court questioned

According to opponents of the regime, Majid created the prohibited zones and used poison gas, air strikes and ground offensives to kill the inhabitants.

But despite accounts from survivors and evidence of the attacks, analysts question the court's ability to hold a genocide trial after what they call the procedural and other lapses in an earlier trial of Saddam and aides.

"In our assessment the judge, the prosecution and the defence do not have an understanding of international criminal law, and genocide is the most serious of international crimes," Bhuta said.

Saddam and seven co-defendants are awaiting a verdict after a trial on charges of ordering the execution of 148 Shiites in the early 1980s in the village of Dujail where an attempt had been made to kill Saddam.

The Dujail trial — which started in October 2005 — was marked by acrimonious walkouts and boycotts by the defendants, the murder of three defence lawyers and the resignation by the first chief judge.

Verdict expected in October

"We saw in the Dujail trial a lot of political pressure to speed it up and reach the verdict as soon as possible even as the court suffered from dozens of procedural flaws," Bhuta said.

The Dujail verdict is expected in October.

Analysts say there should be increased international involvement in the Anfal trial.

"It is very clear that the trial will not be moved out of Iraq, but Iraqi authorities must ensure that there are international advisors to all sides in this trial," veteran Iraq expert and analyst Joost Hiltermann told AFP from Washington.

"Nobody in Iraq has handled a case like this before and it could be ruined by poor presentation by the prosecution and procedural errors, which is why international expertise could be called in, even for the judges."

Chief prosecutor in the Dujail trial Jaafar al-Mussawi told AFP that he would open the Anfal trial proceedings on Monday then hand the prosecution to a three-member team headed by Iraqi lawyer Munkis Taklif al-Faraon.

The accused will be defended by a 12-member defence team, while a 32-strong legal team will represent Anfal's Kurdish victims.

Bhuta views the Anfal trial with scepticism after the Dujail trial, which was much smaller in scope.

"For a trial of such magnitude, there must be pre-trial hearings to see whether each side is ready for the actual one. But we understand the court is pressing ahead from Monday into the trial straight away," he said.

"This is paving the way for ad-hoc adjournments where no one is satisfied. The court has not learnt the lesson and that is a recipe for disaster."

AFP