Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary reviews the written judgments of both the First Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber of the Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT) in the Dujail case. The article considers the key substantive and procedural findings by the Trial Chamber and Appeals Chamber and evaluates the decisions’ consistency with international criminal law. It concludes that the decisions made serious errors in their application of international criminal law principles governing the knowledge and intent of the defendants, and also in respect of findings of fact concerning the knowledge and intent of the defendants. These errors appear closely connected to the failure of the investigative judge and prosecution to present evidence which was essential to establish knowledge and intent in the manner required by international criminal law. The article concludes that many aspects of the convictions were unsustainable as a matter of fact and law. It ends by reflecting on some of the factors which contributed to the failure of the IHT to produce a credible verdict.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".