Drug war victims’ lawyer: Duterte defense may be stalling to delay trial

One of the lawyers for the victims of the bloody drug war has expressed concern that former president Rodrigo Duterte’s defense team is deliberately stalling the application for his interim release at the last minute in an attempt to delay the confirmation of charges scheduled for September and his subsequent trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In an interview on Monday, Kristina Conti, ICC assistant to counsel, said she was puzzled over the inaction of Duterte’s lawyers in petitioning the court for his temporary release despite a previous pronouncement that a pleading was already underway.

“We are looking forward to that. I hope they don't delay it until August. Because if they filed it in August, it might delay the September [hearing] because it has to be discussed [by the involved parties],” Conti narrated in Filipino. “I hope they don't use the timing of their application as an excuse.”

Earlier this month, Duterte’s lead legal counsel, Nicholas Kaufman, confirmed plans to apply for the former president’s provisional release from ICC custody pending his trial on 23 September.

Under Article 60 of the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, an application for interim release is allowed but subject to the conditions set forth by the court.

These conditions include the risk of flight, the risk of interference with witnesses, and the risk of continued crimes he is accused of. Kaufman claimed none of these risk factors are present in Duterte’s case.

Despite this, Conti noted that nothing has been filed yet, which can be confirmed on the ICC website.

“I wonder if the application is redacted or if they sought confidentiality. I don't think it should be because, of course, the other parties should be informed about this,” she stated.

A report from Rappler indicated that aside from the interim release, Kaufman also intends to file a separate motion that seeks to challenge the ICC’s jurisdiction over Duterte.

Despite the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute on 17 March 2019, the ICC insisted that it still retains jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed before the country’s exit as a party member.

According to Conti, it won’t be easy-peasy for Duterte’s lawyers to challenge the ICC’s authority given its wide-ranging scope, such as, among others, the temporal scope, or the period during which the court has jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed.

“They have to specifically cite exactly what jurisdiction they are talking about,” she said.

Conti and other lawyers for the drug war victims warned that they would block any attempt by Duterte’s camp to release him from detention. They asserted that keeping Duterte in ICC custody is necessary to ensure he will not pose a danger or threat to the victims and witnesses of his brutal anti-narcotics campaign.

The 80-year-old Duterte has been under ICC custody since his arrest on 11 March in Manila. He faces a single count of crimes against humanity in connection with 43 extrajudicial killings committed between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019, spanning his time as mayor of Davao City and his presidency.

While government data logged more than 6,000 drug-related deaths under Duterte’s presidency, rights watchdogs estimate that the actual death toll could exceed 30,000, most of them from low-income communities.

Duterte’s former mouthpiece, Harry Roque, who is an ICC-accredited lawyer, said he would appeal to the government of the Netherlands to release his former boss from the detention facility, citing their law prohibiting those aged 80 and above from being imprisoned.

“In the Netherlands, they have rules that when someone is 80 years old, they can no longer be imprisoned. The fact that he is 80 years old and is imprisoned violates his equal protection [under] the law,” he said in an interview shared on his Facebook page.

“I will also talk to Dutch lawyers about this law because if there is really such a thing, we can challenge it because it is contrary to human rights, because it violates the equal protection of the law,” he concluded.