ICC investigation and Khan’s visit

From 23 January until 2 February 2024, UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan will be in the Philippines to assess the government’s human rights mechanisms, particularly on the freedom of opinion and expression.

This visit is a welcome development since Ms. Khan is expected to give, among other things, recommendations to improve human rights mechanisms in the country. However, due to the timing of this visit and the visit of some representatives of the International Criminal Court, some confusion has ensued as to what either seeks to accomplish.

This has prompted me to write in order to help clarify the differences between the two visits so that people can better understand the significant things happening around us.

As stated, the visit of Irene Khan is for the purpose of assessing the government’s human rights mechanisms, particularly on the freedom of opinion and expression. Per information received, she has scheduled discussions focused on the challenges and opportunities involved in upholding and safeguarding these fundamental rights, in line with international standards and best practices.

After her trip, she will share her recommendations with the UN as to how we could improve our human rights mechanisms. Her recommendations will help the government address cases of threats, fix systems in government agencies that have public information offices, and additionally address gender inequality from a human rights perspective.

On the other hand, the visit of the ICC has a different purpose and objective. The ICC wants to investigate the alleged thousands of killings during former President Rodrigo Duterte’s “war on drugs” and other suspected rights abuses. The ICC’s objective is to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States are unwilling or are genuinely unable to do so.

At the end of the ICC’s visit, there is a possibility there will be people who will be prosecuted. A prosecutor prosecutes an individual if, after conducting a preliminary examination which considers such matters as sufficient evidence, jurisdiction, gravity, complementarity, and the interests of justice, the prosecutor finds enough reasons to indict him.

As can be gleaned from the above, the two visits have very different objectives and goals, and they tackle different issues. However there is a common ground between the two since they both discuss human rights, although the specific aspects of human rights they are concerned with are different.

As to issues, one is concerned about the aspect of freedom of opinion and expression, while the other is about the alleged extrajudicial killings in the war against drugs. Both issues are equally important and substantial, but still are different.

Insofar as objectives, one is concerned with suggesting improvements and sharing best practices in the handling of human rights cases so that the Philippines can improve in this aspect. The other is focused on prosecuting those involved in actual wrongdoing and convicting them.

As regards the goals, one aims to uplift the conditions under which the freedom of opinion and expression are exercised. Speech is the main concern and focus for this. The other focuses on convicting those guilty of rights violations and on ending extrajudicial killings. Life is its main concern and the right to enjoy it without threats.

On these three bases, we can all agree that the two visits are indeed different and should not be confused with each other. In my opinion, one is beneficial to the country in creating a better human rights environment for all of us, while the other one is detrimental only to a few.

With that I end my comment and hope that I have contributed to a healthy exchange of views regarding the subject.