ICC prosecutor to present more evidence vs Duterte

MANILA, Philippines — The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is expected to disclose more evidence against former president Rodrigo Duterte apart from the ones that were used as bases for the issuance of a warrant for his arrest.

In his three-page communication to the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I dated March 24, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan said the “181 items” earlier disclosed to Duterte’s defense team do not include materials concerning seven witnesses.

Additional details regarding the evidence were not available as these were listed as confidential.

But the court filing showed that the judges have granted the request of the ICC prosecutor to extend the deadline of the disclosure of evidence relating to “arrest warrant materials of seven witnesses.”

During Duterte’s first appearance before the tribunal on March 14, ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I Presiding Judge Iulia Motoc ordered the “prosecutor to begin disclosing … the information on the basis of which the warrant of arrest was issued, and to complete this disclosure no later than within the next seven days” or up to March 21.

Khan said the 181 items, tagged as “Pre-Confirmation INCRIM package 001,” were disclosed to Duterte’s defense team on that day.

The Pre-Trial Chamber I granted the request for extension on March 20, although it was unclear what the new deadline was for the remaining evidence.

The chamber issued a separate order on March 21 directing both the prosecutor and the defense to provide observations and some preliminary questions ahead of the confirmation of charges hearing on Sept. 23.

In addition to those used as bases for the arrest warrant, the ICC prosecutor is expected to present more evidence against Duterte in the next hearing.

“Disclosure of evidence” is part of ICC’s processes ensuring that due process is accorded to the suspect.

Based on the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, an accused has the right to “be informed of the evidence on which the prosecutor intends to rely at the (confirmation of charges) hearing.”

Focus on mandate

Meanwhile, despite criticisms and even false claims directed at the ICC and the pre-trial judges, the tribunal’s spokesman Fadi El Abdallah maintained that they remain focused on delivering their mandate.

“We are all focused on only one thing, which is delivering justice in the best conditions for the victims and to ensure that truth is revealed about the guilt or innocence of any person who is accused,” Abdallah said in an interview with GMA News.

He also maintained that the international tribunal retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed during the period when a country was still party to the Rome Statute.

“The court’s jurisprudence has already indicated that the ICC retains jurisdiction even after the withdrawal of the state, but only for the crimes that allegedly were committed during the period when the state was a party to the ICC Rome Statute,” he said.

“The withdrawal does not affect these obligations and jurisdiction of the ICC. It only affects the future,” he added.

Duterte ordered the withdrawal of the Philippines from the Rome Statute in March 2018 after then prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced the start of the preliminary examination on the widespread killings related to the drug war. The withdrawal took effect a year later.

The ICC judges, as well as the Philippine Supreme Court, previously ruled that the international tribunal retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in the Philippines from Nov. 1, 2011 to March 16, 2019, the period when the country was a signatory to the Rome Statute.

‘Exercise in futility’

Meanwhile, one of the lawyers representing the victims of Duterte’s bloody drug war said efforts by his children to force his return through a Supreme Court order were “an exercise in futility,” as not even President Marcos can unilaterally bring him back.

“Habeas corpus literally means ‘to bring the body’ of a person held in custody to court. How can Philippine authorities do so when they are not in custody of the body?” said Kristina Conti, an accredited assistant to counsel at the ICC. She was referring to the habeas corpus petition filed by Duterte siblings Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte, Rep. Paolo Duterte and Veronica Duterte.

She noted that the arguments of Duterte’s children before the SC were premised on the “irregularities in the arrest” and the “lawfulness of an ICC warrant of arrest.”

“These questions have been raised before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, but the jurisprudence here remains staid and solid. Irregularities will not void a warrant of arrest nor vitiate the proceedings, unless there is serious mistreatment by the court or its personnel, or by an arresting or detaining official,” she said.

Conti noted that the ICC’s jurisdiction in the case cannot be ignored, citing a previous SC ruling that recognized the international tribunal.

“Ultimately, the SC proceedings could end up an exercise in futility because there’s nothing anyone in the Philippines can do unilaterally and immediately,” Conti said.

“Not even President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. can bring back Duterte without the ICC’s authority and processes at this point,” she added.

Conti is currently in The Hague to process the participation of the victims in the upcoming proceedings at the ICC.