The killing in still unexplained circumstances of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi robbed the nation of vital answers that would have helped bring justice to the tyrant's victims and their families. There is now a chance for that with the capture of his son and heir-apparent, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. But it can only come about if he is tried in fair circumstances - ones that meet international standards. It would be best if that was done by the International Criminal Court in The Hague before impartial, independent judges. Libya's transitional leaders do not want that, even though the country does not yet have a functioning government or legal system. They insist he will not be handed over, contending that fairness lies in his being tried among and by the people against whom he is accused of committing crimes. Those alleged offences, crimes against humanity, are among the worst charges; they are one of the reasons that the ICC was established. The example of Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein, tried and executed on Iraqi soil against the ICC's advice, are a good reason to have second thoughts. Saddam's trial by Iraq's interim government was deeply flawed, his execution rushed and it remains open whether justice was truly attained. This was despite the oversight of the US and its coalition partners in Iraq, who established the special court that tried the dictator. What is clear is that it did not heal the sectarian wounds and the manner in which the case was handled could well have worsened the divisions. That justice was seen to be done was important for reconciliation and nation-building. Libya is now at that same juncture - at a point where establishing and practising the rule of law is an essential part of setting the country on a sound footing. The ICC's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, is open to a trial in Libya only if the court's judges are involved. It is a viable compromise, but a poor second choice to the best option of a trial at the ICC in The Hague.