ICC Postpones Duterte Trial, Drawing Criticism from Victims’ Groups
THE โคHAGUE โ – The International โCriminalโ Courtโ (ICC) has suspended proceedings and related deadlines in the caseโ against former Philippine President rodrigoโข Duterte pending aโค resolution of questions regarding his fitnessโ to stand trial, a decision swiftly condemned by victims’ groups โขas a delaying tactic.
Judges Iulia Antonnella Motoc,โ Reine Adรฉlaรฏde Sophie Alapini-Gansou, and Marรญa del Socorro Floresโ Liera ruled by majority to โฃhalt the trial.The decision comes as Duterte faces accusations โขof crimes against humanity โlinked to the โthousands โคofโฃ killings during his administration’s anti-narcoticsโฃ campaign.
Victims’ groups Riseโข Up for Life and for Rights, โand the National Union ofโ Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) denounced the ruling, โcallingโ it “anotherโ desperate ploy” byโค Duterte. โฃ”Duterte is โฃnotorious for drama and antics of obfuscation.Filipinosโฃ have seen this tactic one time too many.โข We will not fall for a calculated effort to paint himself as aggrieved,” the groups statedโ in a โjoint release.
NUPL counsel Neriโค Colmenares,alongside โassisting โcounsel Kristina โขConti,emphasizedโข the need for a swift determination โof Duterte’s โfitness,arguing he could waive his rightโฃ to attend hearingsโ under Rule 124 of the ICC’sโ Rules of Procedure and Evidence,authorizing his counsel to โrepresent him. “Victims are determined that the trial on the merits mustโค proceed without unnecessary postponements,” Colmenares โฃsaeid. โ
Both counsel vowedโข to collaborate with the Office of Public Counsel โfor Victims at โฃthe ICC to expedite the rescheduling of hearings and prevent further delays. โฃWhile opposing an indefinite adjournment, โthe โคprosecution and victims’ counsel indicated openness to a short postponement.
The โคChamber ordered prosecutors to submit public, redacted versions of the Document โขContaining the Charges and the Pre-Confirmation Brief by September โค22.Judge Marรญa del Socorro Flores Liera issued a dissenting opinion, asserting the Defense request should have been rejected. She argued the Rome Statuteโ designates questions of a suspect’sโข fitness to stand trial to the Trial Chamber, not the Pre-trial Chamber, and warned โthe majority’s decision risked misapplying the Statute and causing “unnecessary delay.”