22
December 2005
2. "Turkey orders fresh insult trial", a Turkish editor is to appear in court after publishing a book that prosecutors say insults the nation. Abdullah Yildiz of Literatur publishers faces several years in jail for printing bestseller "The Witches of Smyrna" by Greek author Mara Meimaridi.
3. "Turkey Has No Plans to Amend Freedom of Expression Law", Turkey’s justice minister said yesterday that the government has no immediate plans to amend the freedom of expression-curbing law that was used to charge renowned writer Orhan Pamuk, a case that has soured relations with the European Union. The EU, which is pressing the country to do more to protect freedom of expression, has criticized the law which makes insulting Turkey, “Turkishness” and state institutions a crime.
4. "Babacan asks for EU patience to see implementation of judicial reforms", during a meeting with ambassadors of the European Union member states in Ankara, Turkey's chief European Union negotiator, Ali Babacan, has reflected a unified governmental stance among Cabinet members concerning an ongoing debate on the controversial Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), EU sources told the Turkish Daily News.
5. "Headscarf Ban does not Suit Turkey", the headscarf ban effective in Turkish universities was taken up at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and approved.
6. "Eurobarometer: Support for Turkey's EU membership falling", support for Turkey's European Union membership among European citizens has fallen to 31 percent, according to a just-released survey by pollster Eurobarometer.
7. "Failie Kurd Rejects Labels", in his address to a recent round table seminar: The Prospects of Democracy, Peace and Freedom in Iraq, Kameran Faily rejected labels and asked to be seen as a human person who can share Iraq.
8. "Court to rule on Dutchman accused of aiding genocide of Kurds", a Dutch court is set to rule Friday in the case of a chemicals trader accused of aiding genocide by selling ingredients for poison gas to the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.
Dear Readers,
Due to the holiday time our
"Flash Bulletin" will not be forwarded to email addresses
from December 23, 2005 until January 1, 2006. It will also not be posted
on the internet.
The next edition will be forwarded on Monday, January 2, 2006.
We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new Year!
1. - The New York Times - "Turkey on trial":
22 December 2005
The trial of Orhan Pamuk, the best-selling Turkish novelist, had barely
gotten under way in Istanbul the other day when the judge postponed
the proceedings until Feb. 7. We can only hope that this delay signals
that Turkish leaders are looking for a way to drop the charges against
Pamuk, who is being prosecuted for "insulting Turkish identity."
In a newspaper interview last February, Pamuk referred to the Armenian
genocide in 1915 during the Ottoman Empire and to the clashes between
Turks and minority Kurds in Turkey since the 1980s. "One million
Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed in these lands and nobody but
me dares talk about it," Pamuk was quoted as saying. This was considered
a crime punishable by up to three years in prison by some Turks, including
some prosecutors.
The case against Pamuk - a short-list candidate for the Nobel Prize
in Literature - has called into question Turkey's willingness to embrace
European political values and, by extension, its readiness to join the
European Union. Over the last few years, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan and his governing party enacted a series of reforms that qualified
Turkey - at last - to open official membership talks in October. Some
of the reforms grant more freedom of expression. But the law still prohibits
insults against the Turkish identity, the state and Turkey's founding
father, Ataturk. The line between illegal insult and legal opinion is
unclear.
As a result, dozens of people in Turkey face charges like those against
Pamuk. Last month a Turkish book publisher said he faced prosecution
for a book published in 1997 that included allegations of human rights
violations by the security forces during fighting with Kurdish rebels
in the 1990s.
In delaying the Pamuk trial, the judge has asked the Justice Ministry
to rule on whether the case should go forward at all. The answer will
say a lot about the current state of a nation that has long prized national
unity above civil liberties. Many Turks oppose Pamuk's prosecution -
and that of other less prominent people on similar charges. But obviously,
some do not.
Dismissing the case against Pamuk and clarifying the law under which
he has been charged are crucial steps Turkey must take to join the European
Union. Even more important will be Turkey's progress in transforming
its institutions to embody the country's new laws.
The trial of Orhan Pamuk, the best-selling Turkish novelist, had barely
gotten under way in Istanbul the other day when the judge postponed
the proceedings until Feb. 7. We can only hope that this delay signals
that Turkish leaders are looking for a way to drop the charges against
Pamuk, who is being prosecuted for "insulting Turkish identity."
In a newspaper interview last February, Pamuk referred to the Armenian
genocide in 1915 during the Ottoman Empire and to the clashes between
Turks and minority Kurds in Turkey since the 1980s. "One million
Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed in these lands and nobody but
me dares talk about it," Pamuk was quoted as saying. This was considered
a crime punishable by up to three years in prison by some Turks, including
some prosecutors.
The case against Pamuk - a short-list candidate for the Nobel Prize
in Literature - has called into question Turkey's willingness to embrace
European political values and, by extension, its readiness to join the
European Union. Over the last few years, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan and his governing party enacted a series of reforms that qualified
Turkey - at last - to open official membership talks in October. Some
of the reforms grant more freedom of expression. But the law still prohibits
insults against the Turkish identity, the state and Turkey's founding
father, Ataturk. The line between illegal insult and legal opinion is
unclear.
As a result, dozens of people in Turkey face charges like those against
Pamuk. Last month a Turkish book publisher said he faced prosecution
for a book published in 1997 that included allegations of human rights
violations by the security forces during fighting with Kurdish rebels
in the 1990s.
In delaying the Pamuk trial, the judge has asked the Justice Ministry
to rule on whether the case should go forward at all. The answer will
say a lot about the current state of a nation that has long prized national
unity above civil liberties. Many Turks oppose Pamuk's prosecution -
and that of other less prominent people on similar charges. But obviously,
some do not.
Dismissing the case against Pamuk and clarifying the law under which
he has been charged are crucial steps Turkey must take to join the European
Union. Even more important will be Turkey's progress in transforming
its institutions to embody the country's new laws. 
2. - BBC - "Turkey orders fresh insult trial":
21 December 2005
A Turkish editor is to appear in court after publishing
a book that prosecutors say insults the nation.
Abdullah Yildiz of Literatur publishers faces several years in jail
for printing bestseller "The Witches of Smyrna" by Greek author
Mara Meimaridi.
The novel is set during the last years of the Ottoman rule in Izmir (Smyrna in Greek), and in some passages describes the city's Turkish quarters as dirty.
Some 60 Turkish reporters and writers have gone on trial on similar charges.
One of the most high-profile trials is that of novelist Orhan Pamuk, who has been charged over his remarks about the alleged mass killing of Kurds and Ottoman Armenians - deaths Turkey insists cannot be classed as genocide.
The European Union has described the case as a litmus test of Turkey's eligibility to join, warning that it is Ankara - rather than Mr Pamuk - that is going on trial.
'Surprise' lawsuit
Mr Yildiz had been accused for "denigrating the Turkish national identity," Literatur's spokeswoman Eylem Ozcimen told the AFP news agency.
"We were very surprised by the lawsuit because the book has been on sale for more than a year," Ms Ozcimen said.
"We informed the author and she told us she had no intention of insulting the Turks and did not have a hostile attitude," she added.
The first hearing is expected to start in April, reports say.
Ms Meimaridi's book sold nearly 50,000 copies in Turkey
and about 100,000 in Greece and is being made into a film.
3. - AP - "Turkey Has No Plans to Amend Freedom of Expression Law":
ANKARA / 21 December 2005
Turkey’s justice minister said yesterday that the government has no immediate plans to amend the freedom of expression-curbing law that was used to charge renowned writer Orhan Pamuk, a case that has soured relations with the European Union. The EU, which is pressing the country to do more to protect freedom of expression, has criticized the law which makes insulting Turkey, “Turkishness” and state institutions a crime.
“If we’re going to make changes to the laws according to your or my understanding then there will be no stability left in the judiciary,” Justice Minister Cemil Cicek said. “It would also damage the unity of the laws.”
A court on Friday halted the trial of Pamuk, Turkey’s best-known author, saying it needed approval from the Justice Ministry before the case could move forward. Pamuk was charged under Article 301 of Turkey’s new penal code, which sets penalties for insults against the Turkish Republic or “Turkishness.”
Pamuk’s lawyers argued that his comments predated the new penal code and the judge referred the issue to the Justice Ministry. An earlier law similar to Article 301 requires Justice Ministry approval before prosecution.
Meanwhile, a lawyer defending Al-Qaeda-linked suspects
standing trial for the 2003 suicide bombings in Istanbul told a court
in Istanbul yesterday that jihad, or holy war, was an obligation for
Muslims and his clients should not be prosecuted. “If you punish
them for this, tomorrow, will you punish them for fasting or for praying?”
Orhan Karahan — a lawyer representing 14 of the 72 suspects —
asked during a long speech in which he read religious texts from an
encyclopedia of Islam.
4. - Turkish Daily News - "Babacan asks for EU patience to see implementation of judicial reforms":
BRUSSELS / 22 December 2005
During a meeting with ambassadors of the European Union member states in Ankara, Turkey's chief European Union negotiator, Ali Babacan, has reflected a unified governmental stance among Cabinet members concerning an ongoing debate on the controversial Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), EU sources told the Turkish Daily News.
Yesterday's meeting between Babacan and the EU ambassadors focused on the screening process of accession talks between Turkey and the bloc. Underlining the need for Turkey to have a communications strategy during the accession process, the EU ambassadors referred to the latest Eurobarometer poll of public opinion conducted in October and November.
Thirty-one percent of Europeans support Turkey's EU membership aspirations, while 55 percent of Europeans opposed Turkey's possible accession, the Eurobarometer poll -- which is done twice a year -- showed.
Support for EU enlargement also generally declined, with the public in 21 of the bloc's 25 members opposed to Turkey joining the bloc.
According to the EU envoys, contentious domestic debate concerning a trial against internationally acclaimed novelist Orhan Pamuk was an example proving a lack of communication by the government and this lack of communication was actually a fact influencing Turkey's image among Europeans, as the latest Eurobarometer showed.
Babacan has not indicated that the government would make an immediate change to Article 301, saying that Turkey needed time to wait and observe what happens regarding implementation of the article, bringing to mind that Article 301 took effect this summer, not very long ago.
EU officials have recently leveled strong criticism of Article 301, which stipulates that insulting Turkey, “Turkishness” or state institutions is a crime, closely following the first hearing of the trial of Pamuk, who is being prosecuted under the article.
Justice Minister Cemil Çiçek said yesterday
that if they decided to amend a law every time there was a problem,
there would be no stability in the judiciary. He said Turkey had taken
serious steps to improve human rights, noting that one had to wait before
the conclusive results of the new laws were understood.
5. - Zaman - "Headscarf Ban does not Suit Turkey":
The headscarf ban effective in Turkish universities was taken up at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and approved.
22 December 2005 / by Joost Lagendijk & Cem Ozdemir*
The Court, in its decision, concluded that the ban is not in violation of the European Human Rights Convention, nor is it in violation of the protocol envisaging the state guarantee the right to an education. The ECHR noted the headscarf ban is interpreted as a “guarantee of democratic values” and the ban at issue, the Court emphasized, is a precautionary measure for the protection of secularism in the country. It was also pointed out that the headscarf is used as a political symbol; as well as having a religious meaning, the Court’s statement about the decision noted.
It is fair to accept that democracies should be able defend themselves against any attempts targeting a totalitarian social order. Legal arrangements are the final resort to apply controls and regulations to defend democracy. Democracies, however, in order not to sabotage their own targets should consider the reasons why women choose to wear headscarves, their lifestyles, and their social functioning are the requirements of pluralism. It cannot be said that every female student at university that wants to wear a headscarf does so for the purpose of establishing an Islamist regime. Most of them only wear a headscarve in the hope of living their lives in line with their religious beliefs. For this reason, if the ECHR in making its decision had recommended taking such a distinction into consideration, at least in the case of Turkish legal procedures, in addition to the recommendation of approximating the Turkish legal procedures to Western European countries, this would have been praiseworthy.
The ECHR ruling will not bring an end to discussion on the headscarf issue either in Turkey or in other European Union countries. When different traditions of different nation-states are considered, it cannot be said that there is a common “European Model” in regard to the attitude of the state against religious symbols and the headscarf. On the contrary, female police officers in Britain have the freedom to wear a headscarf, yet in France, there is a ban on state civil servants wearing any religious symbols while on duty (since the enforcement of a related law about the separation of state and religious affairs). Since 2004, female students attending public schools in France were also banned from wearing headscarf while at school.
Points pro-banners fail to see...
Advocators of the headscarf ban in Turkey appear to miss one important point; the headscarf included, private schools are exempt from the blanket ban on wearing or displaying religious symbols. As in the case with the pro-banners in Germany as well, they overlook the case that in France, any form of religious symbol – either hanging a cross on a wall or wearing it on a chain around the neck - are included in the scope of this ban. As with the application that is partially in practice in some German provinces that allows Christian symbols, the implementation of the law banning the headscarf in France will definitely be virtually impossible, due to the failure of individuals to remain neutral with regard to religious symbols.
One of the important points of discussions in Turkey is that none of the Western Europe countries implemented a law banning female university students from wearing a headscarf. In Turkey, it is just the opposite with teachers and some civil servants, such as judges included in the headscarf ban, as opposed to most of the European countries. It is impossible to compare the legal regulations in Turkey with that of France because the headscarf ban that exists is a legal regulation that covers limited areas in France. In Turkey, a general headscarf ban is in practice in all public domains such as schools, universities, and state offices. This ban sometimes causes strange circumstances to arise. For instance, a mother who wants to attend her daughter’s graduation ceremony may be banned from entering the university if she is wearing a headscarf. Such implementation of the law encourages thoughts suggesting that ultra-secular Jacobeans in Turkey are no worse than some Islamist fanatics with marginal tendencies.
The situation is not good at all: Young women attending universities remove their headscarves and wear wigs in an effort not to lose their right to an education, which is their most natural right. Prime Minister R. Tayyip Erdogan and some ministers are unable to take their wives to official ceremonies; and President A. Necdet Sezer has on occasion invited them to attend official functions without the accompaniment of their wives. These facts are not right for a democratic state of law. Turkey has a realist perspective, such as one day becoming a member of the EU member ahead of it. Citizens of such a Turkey-women or men- today deserve their state’s confidence in them more than they before. What holds society together today is not Islam or its values, but rather, the national culture. It is already known that the symbiotic relationship between religion and society that is claimed to exist in many other Muslim countries does not exist in Turkey. The modernization process will further remove the secularization of society in Turkey, but this process does not mean the abrogating of religion as experience shows.
For social peace, not the EU...
The process of Turkey’s integration to the EU is to ensure Turkey reaches a position where it has completely rid itself of the classic reflexes particular to newly forming nation-states. This includes overcoming of the fear of a theocratic state, which has no reasonable grounding, and to provide religious freedom to Christian minorities, Yezidis, Alevis and also the Sunni majority who do not accept their state’s commentary on religion. Jan Philipp Reemtsma indicated a point often ignored, which he termed the honor of a secular state in the discussion of headscarf in Germany: The state must not allow a religious belief to determine its approach to its citizens’ way of dressing. In this sense, Turkey, too, must have the honor of not being oriented by fear.
The ban of the headscarf in Turkey, of which there is no other example in Europe, must be reassessed and eased, and the relevant legal amendments must be made to bring it in line with Western European standards. This arrangement must be made not because the EU asks it- the EU has not requested this as yet- but because the social disagreement on the very issue of the headscarf continues to prevent social peace. A social consensus reached on this issue will also reinforce the democratic model of Turkey, the majority of whose population is Muslim. The intellectual struggle relating to the meaning and meaninglessness of women wearing the headscarf must take place in theology faculties, in discussion forums at universities and newspapers, and not by the means of severe bans.
At this point, we want to make it clear that we are against making political use of any religious symbol. When we make a comparison to European countries, we see the relationship between various situations in respect to the headscarf, the handling of events in their own contexts or the expression of opinions change between different countries. However, in Turkey, the private religious lives of people are inconsiderately trimmed, without any differentiation. The EU Commission placed its finger one again on the restrictions of religious freedom. Among other things, especially with regard to the situation of religious minorities that were touched upon, it is clear that the restrictions are not only a problem for the minorities, as the head scarf ban in universities clearly shows. Muslims are still facing oppression.
In EU member countries, it is always a matter for complaint that EU citizens do not identify themselves wholly with the Union. Turkey is now on its way to becoming a member of the EU and the Turkish people, the majority of whom are Muslims, support their government’s policy on EU membership. Therefore, if the ECHR had made its decision towards a relaxation of the ban on the headscarf, as in the case of asking for a legal arrangement according to the French model, in which the state is not involved in the administration of universities and private schools- such a decision would have sent a very positive signal strengthening more positive attitudes towards Europe.
Joost Lagendijk, EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Commission Co-chair, Left-Green Party, the Netherlands
Cem Ozdemir, European Parliamentary member, Greens Party,
Germany
6. - The New Anatolian - "Eurobarometer: Support for Turkey's EU membership falling":
BRUSSELS / 21 December 2005
Support for Turkey's European Union membership among European citizens has fallen to 31 percent, according to a just-released survey by pollster Eurobarometer.
The survey was conducted during October and November in the aftermath of the two referendum defeats of the EU's constitution and continuing bitterness over the next EU budget round.
As such the survey shows more unease about the EU's image, with the view that membership is a good thing falling from 54 percent to 50 percent and a fall from 55 percent to 52 percent in the perceived benefits of membership.
On further enlargement, European citizens expressed less enthusiasm. Some 49 percent of the respondents in 25 member states expressed support for enlargement, while 39 percent opposed.
Only 31 percent of the EU citizens said that they are in favor of Turkey's EU membership, while 55 percent said that they are opposed. Citizens in the 10 new member states had a more open and approving approach to Turkey, with 38 percent expressing support for Turkish membership, compared with 29 percent in the old 15 member states.
Croatia, another country on the negotiations track with Turkey, received much support for its membership. Some 51 percent said that they are in favor of Croatia's membership, while 35 opposed. Support for membership of Bulgaria also stayed below 50 percent, and came in at 48 percent.
Public opinion about enlargement varied significantly from country to country, with highest levels obtained in Greece at 74 percent, Slovenia at 74 percent and Poland at 72 percent. But in Austria, Luxembourg, France and Germany, around six out of 10 respondents said that they are against further enlargement.
The ISRO will publish Turkish public perception survey
next week. The survey will show how the Turkish perception about the
EU and other states has changed since 2004.
7. - Mathaba.net - "Failie Kurd Rejects Labels":
21 December 2005
In his address to a recent round table seminar: The Prospects of Democracy, Peace and Freedom in Iraq, Kameran Faily rejected labels and asked to be seen as a human person who can share Iraq.
Let me introduce myself: My name is Kameran Faily. My name on its own immediately identifies me as a Kurd who belongs to the Failie branch of the Kurdish nation and who are the main occupants of Kurdistan region covering middle and southern Iraq and western Iran. Failies also belong to the Shiat part of the Islamic religion.
I invite those who are present to look into themselves and see if they have already made up their minds as to what I am going to say and close off their minds to what actually I will be saying. All this just from hearing and interpreting my name.
Why is it I ask the audience has judgement of me taken place before I even utter another word? The answer is LABLES and LABEL-TAGGING. The labels identifying me are: KURD, SHIA, IRAQI, IRANIAN, NON-ARAB, etc. Now I invite the audience to see if they can find it in themselves to consider me without labels. Or if not, at least only label me with being a HUMAN and a person who can SHARE-IRAQ with the rest of them.
Why is it we use labels? The answer is: “It is the
easiest way for our brains to process information”. Once we identify
a distinctive pattern or feature of an object we immediately assign
a label to it and start coming up with rules to govern our behaviour
towards it. So in the case of Iraq – and the same is true of most
conflicts around the world – we use these labels to make up rules
and laws governing what rights have each of the persons having this
label or that. Instead of it becoming a scientific interest or just
for curiosity that we assign labels, instead, it has become a point
of division and an instrument of institution and law making.
Lets delve into the history of the Kurds. Kurds have lived and dominated
the Kurdistan region for a long time approaching 7-8 thousand years,
spawning several of the early human civilisations in history. We count
in the region of 25-27 million people. Kurdistan was divided between
Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria and other countries of the region. This carving
was done after the fall of the Ottoman empire soon after the 1st World
War. This in effect makes the Kurds the largest ethnic grouping in the
world without a homeland.
In every country the Kurds have been LABLED as inferior and hence made into 2nd or 3rd class citizens. Some of the countries prevent the creation of Kurdish political parties. Others prevent the Kurds from speaking their own language in public or acknowledge their Kurdish routes. Others will not even allow their own children to be given Kurdish names and substituted instead with any other name other than Kurdish.
To top it all, the Kurds in Iraq were – and for a
period spanning half a century – have been brutally suppressed
in one form or another culminating in the genocide taking place close
to the end of the 1980’s.
The Kurds in Iraq are split into different political parties with the
KDP (Kurdistan Democratic Party) and PUK (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan)
having the largest followings. During the imposition of the safe haven
region by the US in the north of Iraq at the beginning of the 1990’s,
the Kurds have been able to overcome the LABLING problem and worked
together to make a stable regional government covering that region.
This has lead to the creation of the Kurdish Parliament and the spread
of piece and relative prosperity for over a decade. The Kurds have been
able to show that they can govern themselves and will be now reluctant
to have a lower status in any new constitutional undertaking.
If I now take on the label of KURD and ask “what will satisfy me?”. I have to say that I have the right to aim for all of Kurdistan to become one country. But we live under a political reality that of the United Nations and the different governments that currently govern the region. So then the only thing left for me to ask is that I be labeled as a HUMAN BEING who has the right to be living and sharing in the resources of this country called Iraq. I should have the right to request that I exercise my right to join in the political process and have the right to access every department of state regardless who has been appointed as the head of this ministry or that.
In conclusion, what is the way forward? There is a worrying trend now that labels (religion, language, tribal, regional etc.) are becoming an important factor in the making up of the political process and that of finalising the constitution and the drafting of the new laws. If the labels make their way into the writing of the laws and if boundaries within the different government institutions - on a practical level - have been placed accordingly; then this is where democracy and peace will have a dim chance in taking hold.
On the other hand if parties corporate between themselves
and bring on consensus government (as is currently happening as far
as elections), then the way for democracy and peace is rosy. What we
need is time and the men/women who will accept that all Iraqis have
equal rights, and given enough time, wounds will heal the peace will
prevail no matter what the final overall political solution is.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for inviting me to this gathering and giving
me the chance for putting forward my view and what I think are the views
of the majority of Kurds in relation to way forward.
8. - AFP - "Court to rule on Dutchman accused of aiding genocide of Kurds":
THE HAGUE / 22 December 2005
A Dutch court is set to rule Friday in the case of a chemicals trader accused of aiding genocide by selling ingredients for poison gas to the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.
In the landmark ruling the Dutch judges will not only have to establish the guilt or innocence of businessman Frans van Anraat, but also determine whether the 1988 massacre of Iraqi Kurds in Halabja amounted to genocide.
The attack, which killed more than 5,000 people in a single day, also features among the preliminary charges against Saddam, who is currently on trial in Baghdad.
Van Anraat is the first person to stand trial on genocide charges for the Halabja attack. He is also charged with war crimes for other Iraqi nerve gas attacks on Kurdish villages in Iraq and in Iran. Prosecutors have asked for a 15-year sentence.
"The mustard gas and nerve gas made with the help of Van Anraat created tens of thousands of victims in Iraq and Iran," prosecutor Fred Teeven said in his closing argument.
In the 1980s the Dutchman acted as a sort of middleman, buying chemicals on the world market and selling them on to Iraq despite export bans then in place.
The materials he supplied included thiodiglycol and phosphorus oxychloride, both described as ingredients for mustard and nerve gases.
Van Anraat, 63, has admitted to selling the chemical components to Iraq, but maintains that he was not aware of the use to which they were put.
However, the prosecution presented several witnesses and documents they said showed Van Anraat knew from 1984 onwards that the chemicals could be used to make poison gas. They also said the Dutchman was the sole supplier of thiodiglycol to Iraq from 1985 to 1988.
Van Anraat, a portly man with a shock of grey hair, refused to answer most of the judges' questions. He appeared seemingly unmoved as several victims of poison gas attacks from Iran and Iraq testified about what happened to them.
His illegal trade resulted in a first arrest in 1989 in Italy on a US request as part of an investigation into his violating the export ban to Iraq, but he subsequently managed to flee to Iraq.
There he lived for 14 years under a new name given to him by the Iraqi regime, Faris Mansour Rasheed al Bazzaz, meaning "the courageous and intelligent fabric salesman".
He remained in Iraq until US-led forces invaded the country in 2003, and then returned to the Netherlands, Dutch officials said.
The businessman was finally arrested here in December 2004 on charges of complicity in genocide and war crimes.
Fifteen victims of Iraqi poison gas attacked have joined the proceedings against Van Anraat and have demanded damages for almost 700 eurosdollars) each, the maximum possible under the applicable law.
The defence has called for the case to be dismissed on the grounds that a trial against the alleged principal perpetrators of the crimes, including Saddam Hussein, is ongoing in Iraq.
Failing that, they have also argued that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence for a conviction.
Even though the Dutch court will issue the first legal ruling on whether Halabja amounted to genocide, observers say it remains uncertain if this might affect the Iraq tribunal trying Saddam and others.
"I do not think it will have a lot of effect abroad because it will mostly reflect Dutch law," explained Heikelina Verrijn Stuart, a Dutch lawyer and commentator who has followed the Van Anraat trial.
"The Iraq tribunal will have to take into account
international law as established by, for instance, UN ad hoc tribunals,
but not necessarily Dutch law."