The prosecution and victims in former President Rodrigo Duterte’s International Criminal Court case opposed the defense’s request to refile the charges against him, saying the court had already confirmed them.
The defense contended that the prosecution’s Document Containing the Charges (DCC) relied on “illustrative non-exhaustive incidents” grouped under different headings instead of presenting a clearly defined set of facts, and failed to adequately inform Duterte of the nature of the case against him.
But the Acting Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang rejected this claim as unfounded.
Niang said that the legal adequacy of the charges and the right to notice are two distinct matters.
The legal adequacy has been settled when the Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed the charges against Duterte, he said.
“The question of the adequacy of the charges has been determined by the Pre-Trial Chamber—which carefully verified their proper formulation in accordance with the established law of this Court, affirmed by the Appeals Chamber,” he said.
The defense also participated in the confirmation proceedings, he pointed out.
He also said that while the defense questions the form of the charges, which is different from earlier cases, this does not show that the form is legally inadequate.
“The case against Mr Duterte differs in material respects from other cases before the Court, justifying a different approach to the form of the charges,” he said.
He also contested the argument that the charges in this case are a moving target, saying they have a clear temporal, geographical and material scope.
Niang said the defense’s question of sufficient notice was premature, noting that this could be done through various means and that any potential defect could be cured during the proceedings.
At the same time, he contended that the prosecution has provided sufficient notice of the incidents it would rely on to prove the charges.
For their part, the victims’ common legal representatives said that the defense’s request to have the charges refiled should be dismissed at the outset or rejected on the merits.
They said that while the defense appeared to question the form of the charges, the substance of its arguments challenges the manner in which the Pre-Trial Chamber delineated and confirmed the charges.
The defense raised the same arguments already rejected by the Pre-Trial Chamber, they added.
They also said any objection to the DCC should have been raised before the confirmation of the charges.
“They cannot now be used, after the completion of the confirmation proceedings, as a vehicle for reopening the Pre-Trial Chamber’s determination of the charges. The charges have been confirmed; Mr Duterte has been committed to trial on the charges as confirmed; and the Defence has already unsuccessfully sought leave to challenge the manner in which the Pre-Trial Chamber delineated their scope,” they said.
The victims’ legal representatives also said the defense conflated Duterte’s right to be informed in detail of the charges with the proper delineation of the facts and circumstances.
They said the characteristics of the case against Duterte justify a broader formulation of the charge to properly reflect the alleged scale and nature of the conduct.
This does not make the charges open-ended, they said.
“The degree of factual specificity with which the charges are formulated is distinct from the elements which the Prosecution must establish at trial,” they added.