Duterte faces ICC ‘virtually' for the first time, confirmation of charges hearing set on Sept. 23
Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte appeared before the International Criminal Court's (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber I after being taken to The Hague on murder allegations related to his war on drugs.
According to the ICC, Duterte is suspected of the crime against humanity of murder, allegedly committed in the Philippines between November 1, 2011 and March 16, 2019.
During the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber I, Duterte's lawyer Salvador Medialdea stated that his 'client was abducted from his country.' He also invited the registry's representative to present in court and explain to the judges how Duterte's arrest was just and fair.
Medialdea also said that it was his first time seeing Duterte since his arrest on the morning of the Pre-Trial Chamber I and had less than an hour to 'discuss legal issues.' He also said he could not give the former president a copy of the arrest warrant because no one supplied them with such.
Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc of the ICC, in response to Medialdea, stated that doctors in the detention center found Duterte to be 'fully mentally aware and fit' after undergoing checks and tests.
'And when you approached health matters, saying you were not able to come to the hearing, the doctors that consulted with you were of the opinion that Mr. Duterte was not in a position to come to the hearing physically, but that if he gave permission, he would be able to take part via video link.
'Now, that is with regards to the health matters that you just mentioned,' Motoc said. 'They are very important, especially concerning the matter of age.'
Motoc also addressed Medialdea's concern regarding being supplied with the arrest warrant.
'Now with regards to the rights of Mr. Duterte, we have before us the registrar or the registry's report that says that Mr. Duterte has been informed of his rights, including Article 66 and 67 of the Rome Statute, and that he is aware of his rights and that he is also aware of the charges against him,' Motoc said.
Motoc further explained that they also have the registry's report saying that he has received the arrest warrant in the English language. It is just the beginning
Motoc clarified that this is just the initial hearing, where they discuss Duterte's rights and the charges against him.
'And then there will be a full procedure that will unfurl leading up to the confirmation of charges that will enable Mr. Duterte to raise all the matters that you have just raised, with regards to the warrant of arrest, with regards to the crimes committed, with regards to the charges, and any other matters associated with his arrest, and the matters of the jurisdiction of the court,' Motoc added.
She reassured Dutere's team that they will have the opportunity to do all this throughout these proceedings.
Motoc also confirmed that Medialdea's request to postpone the hearing to next week was denied by the court. 'This first initial appearance hearing does not need much preparation as I have said to you on a number of occasions,' Motoc said.
Moving on, Motoc said that there will be a hearing to confirm the charges against Duterte.
'After accessing all the factors, including the need for the parties and participants to adequately prepare, as well as Mr. Duterte's rights, including his right to be tried within a reasonable time, the date for the commencement of the confirmation of charges hearing is September 23rd, 2025,' Motoc said.
If the case moves forward, a trial is expected to start in early 2026.
Duterte, 79, was arrested in Manila and flown to the Netherlands on Wednesday. Appearing frail, he confirmed his identity via video link from a detention unit but did not speak further due to his alleged health condition.
Prosecutors accuse Duterte of orchestrating widespread extrajudicial killings during his presidency, targeting alleged drug offenders. Victims' families see his ICC appearance as a step toward justice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Could David Cameron be prosecuted for threatening the ICC?
David Cameron, the former British foreign secretary, may be liable for prosecution under international law and within the UK for his attempts to obstruct the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC), experts have said. Middle East Eye revealed on Monday that Cameron privately threatened Karim Khan, the British chief prosecutor at the ICC, in April 2024 to defund and withdraw from the ICC if it issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. "A threat against the ICC, direct or indirect, is an obstruction of justice," Francesca Albanese, the UN's special rapporteur on Palestine, told MEE's live show on Tuesday. "It's incredibly serious that someone in a position of power might have had the audacity to do that." And Professor Sergey Vasiliev of the Open University of the Netherlands reacted: "If the reports are confirmed, David Cameron did cross the legal line when he threatened the Prosector with all kinds of consequences for applying for the warrants. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "This is a serious matter that shows Cameron's utter lack of respect for the ICC's judicial and prosecutorial independence." What did David Cameron do? Cameron, then foreign secretary in Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, made the threat on 23 April 2024 during a heated phone call with Khan. Cameron told Khan that the UK would "defund the court and withdraw from the Rome Statute" if the ICC issued warrants for Israeli leaders. At the time, Khan and his team of lawyers were preparing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then-defence minister, Yoav Gallant, as well as for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh and Mohammed Deif. Khan's office applied for warrants on 20 May, less than a month after the phone call. 'Per the reported dialogue, David Cameron clearly seeks to pressure the ICC Prosecutor's decision regarding whether to pursue warrants for Israeli officials' - Professor Tom Dannenbaum Six months later, on 21 November, the warrants were approved by a panel of judges, officially charging Netanyahu and Gallant with war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza since October 2023. MEE revealed details of the call based on information from several sources, including former staff in Khan's office familiar with the conversation and who have seen the minutes of the meeting. Cameron, a former British prime minister who was appointed foreign secretary by Sunak in November 2023, told Khan that applying for warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant would be "like dropping a hydrogen bomb". He said Khan was "on the brink of making a huge mistake" and that "the world is not ready for this". The report has drawn condemnation from British MPs who called for an investigation into Cameron's actions. Cameron has not responded to multiple requests for comment. Approached by MEE for a response to the exchange with Cameron, Khan said on Monday: "I have no comment to make at this time." What's the background to David Cameron's demands? The Conservative government was accused last year of being behind the delay in the ICC's issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli and Hamas officials, after filing a request with the pre-trial chamber to challenge the court's jurisdiction on Israeli nationals. The request prompted dozens of submissions from other states, but was later dropped by the Labour government, which came to power in July 2024. The revelations about Cameron came after the administration of US President Donald Trump said last week that it would sanction four ICC judges for investigations into the US and its ally Israel. In February, Khan was the first ICC official to be the target of US sanctions, carried out under an executive order issued shortly after Trump took office. The revelations also follow Khan's decision to take a leave of absence pending a UN-led investigation into alleged sexual misconduct, an accusation denied by his lawyers. What are the legal risks for Cameron? The ICC, established by the Rome Statute in 2002, is the only permanent international court that prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It has 125 signatories, including the UK and all EU countries, though Hungary has officially begun the withdrawal process. Leading international law experts have told Middle East Eye that Cameron's behaviour is an attack on judicial independence, and is prohibited under the Rome Statute and British law as an obstruction of justice. Professor Tom Dannenbaum of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy said that, in general, the UK is entitled to withdraw from the ICC, and, upon exit, would then cease its financial contribution. Exclusive: David Cameron threatened to withdraw UK from ICC over Israel war crimes probe Read More » Additionally, as a state party to the Rome Statute, the UK can advocate budget cuts within the Assembly of States Parties, the court's governing body, without having to pull out. But, he said, the issue here arises before any such withdrawal or defunding. "The problem here is David Cameron's reported threat to condition possible UK action or inaction in those respects on the decisions of the ICC Prosecutor regarding whom to investigate and prosecute," said Dannenbaum. "That threat is deeply concerning. The rule of law depends on prosecutors' insulation from political pressure in their identification of individuals for investigation and prosecution,. That is true at the ICC just as it is in domestic systems of criminal justice." Under what law could Cameron be charged? The four experts MEE spoke to said the ICC could charge Cameron, given the nature of the phone call with Khan, based on Article 70 of the Rome Statute, which prohibits offences against the administration of justice. These include "impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties; and retaliating against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that or another official." Dannenbaum argued that Cameron's threat to withdraw the UK from the ICC and defund the court may amount to "corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of … persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties". Although this particular provision has never been litigated before the ICC, Dannenbaum said, the relevant offence of "corruptly influencing a witness" has. "That case law indicates that 'corruptly influencing' includes 'pressuring' the protected person in a way 'capable of influencing the nature' of their contribution and thereby 'compromising' it, with the term 'corruptly' signifying the aim of 'contaminating' the person's contribution," Dannenbaum explained. "Per the reported dialogue, David Cameron clearly seeks to pressure the ICC Prosecutor's decision regarding whether to pursue warrants for Israeli officials. It is possible that this pressure would be understood to have been designed to 'contaminate' the Prosecutor's decision, although that concept may be less clear here than it is in the context of witness testimony. "Considerations regarding state withdrawal and budget cuts are plausibly 'capable' of influencing such decisions, albeit that the Prosecutor appears to have resisted the pressure in the case at hand." Given the above points, Dannenbaum concluded that Cameron's conduct may be consistent with the prohibited offences against the administration of justice listed under Article 70. The court has jurisdiction over Article 70 offences, irrespective of the nationality or location of the accused. What penalty could Cameron face? If successfully charged, Cameron is likely to face an arrest warrant by the court and, if convicted, could be sentenced to up to five years of imprisonment in The Hague or a fine. However, given the vulnerability of the ICC, with Trump's sanctions and Khan's leave of absence, Vasiliev suggested that Cameron's prosecution in The Hague would be "rather unlikely. "The ICC could in principle open the investigation into these allegations under Article 70 or request the UK to do so (or the UK could do so on its own). Whether this will in fact be done, is a big question." Could Cameron be prosecuted in the UK? Toby Cadman, a British barrister and international law expert, said that if the allegations are substantiated by clear evidence, then Cameron could be investigated at an international and domestic level "provided there's political will". Francesca Albanese: David Cameron could be criminally liable for threatening ICC Read More » In the UK, an investigation could be opened for the common law offence of obstruction or perverting the course of justice or the common law offence of misconduct in public offence, he said. An investigation in the UK can be carried out in accordance with Section 54 of the ICC Act 2001, which is based on Article 70 of the Rome Statute. The attorney general's consent would be required for any prosecution to go ahead. "It is quite clear that the allegation is serious and if the UK is committed to maintaining a system based on the rule of law with full respect for the state's international treaty obligations it should open an investigation and if the evidence supports it, bring charges," Cadman told MEE. Could Cameron be prosecuted outside the UK? But Vasiliev suggested that Cameron's prosecution before the courts of other states would be precluded by his functional immunity - the protection granted to senior officials if an alleged offence was committed during their official duties. "Cameron has a functional immunity for that act as he uttered those threats in the exercise of his official functions, and there is no exception to such immunity applicable in foreign courts for offences against the integrity of judicial system," Vasiliev argued. "The prosecution authorities of other states parties therefore will not eagerly pursue such a case."
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Trump wants to 'liberate' Los Angeles, residents say 'no thanks'
US President Donald Trump says he sent in the National Guard and Marines to "liberate" Los Angeles from the violence of protesters, but some residents of Little Tokyo, a neighbourhood hit hardest by the unrest say "no thanks" Mr President. Los Angeles police began arresting people in the city's downtown late on Tuesday, as groups gathered in violation of an overnight curfew after a fifth day of protests against Trump's immigration crackdown. Looting and vandalism in the second-biggest US city have marred the largely peaceful protests over ramped-up arrests by immigration authorities. A dozen people who live, work or frequent the neighbourhood, where Japanese is heard spoken as frequently as English in shops and restaurants, on Tuesday told Reuters that Trump's use of the military was inflaming the protests against recent immigration raids in Los Angeles. "The president sending in the National Guard and Marines has only made things worse, it's made the protesters go crazy," said Sulieti Havili, who lives nearby and helps run a Pokemon club with over 6,000 members that routinely plays in Little Tokyo. "They are doing nothing to protect this community." California Highway Patrol officers detain protesters near the 101 freeway. AFP Havili, 25, who was out picking up trash in Little Tokyo with her Pokemon club partner Nolberto Aguilar, 42, said it was clear to her that Trump sending in thousands of military personnel had "brought out the worst in the protesters" and only served to aggravate the situation. Aguilar added that Trump's deployment of troops was thwarting the will of most Los Angeles citizens and local leaders, fanning the flames created by ICE immigration raids, that he said targeted law-abiding immigrants. The Trump administration says its immigration raids are rounding up de facto criminals for lacking proper documents to stay in the United States. California Highway Patrol officers detain protesters near the 101 freeway in Los Angeles. AFP California Governor Gavin Newsom has said the use of military personnel to combat the protests had "inflamed a combustible situation" and warned that "democracy is under assault." Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has said that Trump's use of troops was a deliberate effort to create "chaos." The Trump administration strongly rejects the accusations and says their actions were needed in the face of local and state leaders inability to get the situation under control. 'INSTIGATING' ACTION Little Tokyo, a charming neighborhood with shops selling Japanese goods and restaurants serving up some of the city's finest sushi, abuts the federal buildings where protesters have gathered for five nights in a row. For the past two nights, when police and National Guard troops have forcibly dispersed protesters in the early evening, demonstrators scatter into smaller groups into Little Tokyo, which has been covered with anti-ICE and anti-Trump graffiti. A protester is arrested by California Highway Patrol near the federal building in downtown Los Angeles. AP Running skirmishes well into the night in the neighborhood has seen police use booming flash-bangs and firing other "less lethal" munitions at protesters. Several of those interviewed in Little Tokyo asked that they not be named, saying they feared reprisals - from the federal government. Many were immigrants themselves or had family members who were not born in the US, and feared making themselves or their loved ones targets of ICE. One of those was Anthony, who works at a tea shop in the neighbourhood. "There is no question that the president sending in thousands of National Guard and 700 Marines has done nothing but make the protesters more aggressive," he said. "It's instigating the protesters and making things worse." Samantha Lopez, a descendent of Filipino immigrants who works at a Korean ice cream parlor in Little Tokyo, said she felt empathy for the demonstrators but rejected any acts of vandalism or violence they carry out. Still, she blamed the use of military personnel for creating the unrest. "It's just poor handling of protests that stay peaceful until they're confronted by officers," Lopez said. "It's bad for business, and it's bad for this neighbourhood." Reuters
Middle East Eye
10 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Francesca Albanese: David Cameron could be criminally liable for threatening ICC
On Monday, Middle East Eye revealed that former British Foreign Secretary David Cameron privately threatened to defund and withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) if it issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. Cameron, then foreign secretary in Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, made the threat in April 2024 in a heated phone call with Karim Khan, the British chief prosecutor of the court. Since then, 10 British MPs have commented on the revelation. Some have called for a parliamentary investigation, while others have urged the Labour government to distance itself from Cameron's actions. On Tuesday afternoon, Humza Yousaf, who was Scotland's first minister when Cameron made the threat, said that it was "shameful that Lord Cameron allegedly threatened the ICC for having the audacity to do their job". Now, legal experts say there is a serious risk that Cameron, who sits as a Tory peer in the House of Lords, could be criminally liable. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Francesca Albanese, the prominent legal scholar and UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, weighed in on Tuesday evening in an exclusive interview with MEE. Albanese, an expert in international law, was careful to note that she is not conversant with all the details of the Cameron story. She caveated her comments by saying, "if this occurred and there is evidence". The UN rapporteur explained that if Cameron acted as MEE's sources said he did, the former foreign secretary and prime minister has committed a "criminal offence under the Rome Statute". The Rome Statute criminalises those who attempt to prevent war crimes from being prosecuted. Article 70 awards the ICC jurisdiction over those responsible for "impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties". According to MEE's sources in The Hague, Cameron told the ICC prosecutor that if the ICC issued warrants for Israeli leaders, the UK would "defund the court and withdraw from the Rome Statute". Cameron did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 'The court can take action' "A threat against the ICC, direct or indirect, is an obstruction of justice," Albanese told MEE. "It's an action aimed at preventing the court from carrying out an investigation. So it's a violation of the principle of judicial independence. "It's incredibly serious that someone in a position of power might have had the audacity to do that." Exclusive: David Cameron threatened to withdraw UK from ICC over Israel war crimes probe Read More » Albanese pointed out that "any form of intimidation, retaliation, or interference with court officials is an offence in itself". Significantly, she said that the "court can take action against a person who misbehaves or obstructs proceedings." Cameron could also face potential repercussions under British domestic law. Section 54 (1) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 notes: "A person intentionally committing any of the acts mentioned in article 70.1 (offences against the administration of justice in relation to the ICC) may be dealt with as for the corresponding domestic offence committed in relation to a superior court in England and Wales." Albanese said that if Cameron was still in politics, "there would be condemnations from other states, probably diplomatic or retaliatory measures. "Now, I don't know the UK system enough, but in normal systems, had he still been in office, there could have been an investigation, legal challenges by civil society - surely something that will happen. "And again, I don't know. One needs to see the UK legislation, but surely there could be something that is along these general principles." 'Cameron must be investigated' In the call on 23 April, Cameron told Khan that applying for warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant would be "like dropping a hydrogen bomb". He said Khan was "on the brink of making a huge mistake" and that "the world is not ready for this". According to MEE's sources, the foreign secretary spoke aggressively and repeatedly shouted over Khan, who had to ask to be able to complete his points. 'Any form of intimidation, retaliation, or interference with court officials is an offence' - Francesca Albanese Labour MP Naz Shah called the news "shocking" and said she would be "raising this matter directly" with the Foreign Office. Labour MP Zarah Sultana said on social media platform X that "David Cameron - and every UK minister complicit in arming and enabling Israel's genocide in Gaza - must be investigated for war crimes." Independent MP Ayoub Khan told MEE: "I urge the relevant parliamentary standards committees to investigate this matter with the seriousness it deserves." Emily Thornberry, a senior Labour MP and the chair of parliament's foreign affairs select committee, said: "I've always believed that when making difficult decisions, international law must always be our guide." Approached by MEE for a response to the exchange with Cameron, Khan said on Monday: "I have no comment to make at this time."
