Libya death sentences cast long shadow over rule of law

In July, a court in Tripoli ruled against more than 30 officials and personalities who had served under Col Muammar Gaddafi's government. The rulings included nine death-penalty verdicts, four acquittals and a range of other prison sentences for war crimes.

Those condemned to death by firing squad include Col Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam and former chief of military intelligence Abdullah al-Senussi, a figure who was once feared by Libyans on an almost mythical level - arguably for good reason.

The International Criminal Court also wanted Mr Gaddafi and Mr Senussi for alleged war crimes during the 2011 revolution that ended the colonel's 42-year rule.

Successive Libyan governments insisted on prosecuting these men on home soil.

They believed they could show the world a fair trial could be conducted.

Perhaps, this was a cardinal mistake.

Transitional justice is a complicated affair often emotionally charged.

This was complicated even further in Libya because it transitioned from one war to another.

Today, Libya is not secure - for anyone.

'Miscarriage of justice'

If nothing else, the verdicts illustrate the difficulties in conducting fair trials in a country ruled by militias, driven by revenge, and void of any effective central government.

This is a key issue that tainted the proceedings from the start.

This trial had no witnesses brought forward, and no evidence presented or debated in court.

When they were not too busy demanding access to their clients, which was often a difficult feat, defence lawyers constantly feared for their lives.

One was even shot in the leg.

Former Justice Minister Salah al-Marghani, who was in power when the trial began, told me: "It is a miscarriage of justice that will haunt Libya for a long time."

He said Libyans had been "deprived of finding out the truth in a fair trial to judge an era of severe tyranny".

So what do these verdicts mean?

Few things are straightforward in Libya - including court verdicts.

The charges on which the death penalty was based were not clarified point-by-point.

The silence of Western nations has been deafening.

The absence of official reaction from them creates room for many theories to be entertained by some observers.