ICC prosecutor opposes ‘reframed’ charges vs Duterte

MANILA, Philippines — The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor has opposed the defense’s request to reframe the crimes against humanity charges against former president Rodrigo Duterte, saying the issues it raised had already been settled during the confirmation proceedings.

In a 10-page response, ICC acting prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang urged Trial Chamber III to dismiss the motion filed by Duterte’s defense questioning the form of the charges.

Defense lawyer Peter Haynes, in a motion dated Aug. 31, argued that the original document containing the charges, or DCC, “is not fit for purpose and should be struck out.”

Haynes said the charges were improperly framed by grouping the alleged crimes under three topical headings, supposedly violating Duterte’s right to be informed in detail of the nature, cause and content of the charges against him.

The defense asked Trial Chamber III to direct the ICC prosecutor to file an updated DCC before the Pre-Trial Chamber that confirmed the charges against Duterte.

Niang, however, said the defense failed to distinguish between the legal adequacy of the charges and the accused’s right to notice.

He also said many of the defense’s arguments had already been addressed during the confirmation proceedings.

“Questions as to the form of charges are a matter for confirmation proceedings, not trial. The defense fully participated in the substantive proceedings to confirm the charges, up to and including seeking leave (unsuccessfully) to appeal the Pre-Trial Chamber’s confirmation decision on the issue of the form of the charges,” Niang wrote.

Duterte is facing crimes against humanity charges involving three sets of alleged incidents: murders in Davao from 2013 to 2016, murders of high-value targets from 2016 to 2017 and murders and attempted murders linked to barangay operations from 2016 to 2018.

Niang rejected the defense’s criticisms of how the charges were structured, saying the three counts “each have a clear temporal, geographical and material scope.”

On the issue of notice, Niang maintained that the prosecution had provided the defense with sufficient information about the incidents and victims that would be covered during the trial.

“The prosecution has duly provided sufficient notice of all the relevant incidents and victims, both through the information provided in the course of confirmation proceedings but also through auxiliary pre-trial documents such as the trial brief,” he added.