Acting International Criminal Court Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang has asked Trial Chamber III to reject former President Rodrigo Duterte’s legal team’s request for the prosecution to re-file the charges against him over his administration’s bloody war on drugs.
In a submission to the Trial Chamber, Niang said the defense motion was “unfounded” and wrongly challenged the form of the charges that had already been confirmed by the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber.
“The Prosecution respectfully rejects this assertion, and opposes this request, which is unfounded,” Niang said.
The Duterte defense had argued that the charges violated his right to be informed in detail of the nature, cause and content of the charges under Article 67(1)(a) of the Rome Statute.
It asked the Trial Chamber to order the prosecution to “re-file a set of charges that properly informs the accused of the case he needs to meet,” pursuant to Article 61(9).
Niang, however, said the defense was conflating two separate issues, which are the legal adequacy of the charges under Article 74(2) and Duterte’s right to adequate notice under Article 67(1)(a).
He said the adequacy of the charges had already been settled during the confirmation proceedings before the Pre-Trial Chamber.
According to Niang, the Pre-Trial Chamber had carefully examined the charges and defined their temporal, geographical, and material scope.
He also pointed out that Duterte’s defense had fully participated in the confirmation proceedings and had even sought permission to appeal the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision on the form of the charges, but was unsuccessful.
“Accordingly, in these circumstances, the Trial Chamber should regard issues concerning the technical form of the charges as settled,” Niang said.
He also rejected the defense claim that the charges were a “literal moving target,” saying the three counts each have a clear temporal, geographical and material scope.
Niang said the charges do not require the prosecution to prove every alleged incident listed under a count because Duterte may be convicted on a count if the Trial Chamber is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of his criminal responsibility for any of the incidents alleged as evidence of that count, he said.
He stressed, however, that this does not mean Duterte could be convicted beyond the scope of his proven culpability.
On the defense’s claim that Duterte had not been adequately informed of the case he would face at trial, Niang said the issue was premature.
He said sufficient notice may be provided through various means, including pre-trial filings and the prosecution’s Trial Brief.
Niang said the prosecution had already provided the defense with sufficient notice of the relevant incidents and victims, including a small number of additional incidents within the scope of the confirmed charges that it intends to prove at trial.
The prosecution had also been directed by Trial Chamber III to give notice of any “new incidents” by Aug. 31, 2026, he said.
Niang said any additional victims that may emerge would be subject to the Trial Chamber’s determination on whether the defense had been given sufficient notice.
“For all the reasons above, the Motion should be dismissed,” Niang said.#