Drug war victims' lawyer refutes Kaufman's insinuations of ICC's 'biased' ruling

Former president Rodrigo Duterte was afforded the right to a fair trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC), one of the counsels representing drug war victims asserted Saturday, as he debunked the defense’s insinuations of a biased ruling. 

Lawyer Gilbert Andres of the Office of Public Counsel for Victims argued that Duterte could have been brought to the pre-trial far sooner had the ICC truly shown impartiality in the case.

Recall that Duterte was initially supposed to face the Pre-Trial Chamber I for the confirmation of his charges on 23 September last year, but was moved to 23 February after Duterte’s lead counsel, Nicholas Kaufman, petitioned the court to indefinitely postpone the proceedings, citing the ex-leader’s advanced age and debilitating health, making him unfit to stand trial.

“The suspect’s right to a fair trial was really respected. Remember, this should have happened on September 23 last year, but it was only in February 23 that the confirmation of charges hearing started,” Andres said partly in Filipino in a radio interview. 

“That's why the defense cannot say that it was an accommodation. It's based on the rules of the Rome Statute, on the evidence,” he added. 

Earlier this week, the PTC I confirmed all three murder charges against Duterte, effectively sending his case to a full trial.

Although the decision no longer came as a surprise, Kaufman still criticized the ruling, insinuating that the chamber unfairly favored the prosecution “at the expense of the former President’s fair trial rights.”

ICC prosecutors charged Duterte with three counts of murder for the killings of 78 individuals, including six children, allegedly suspected of drug dealings from 2013 to 2018, spanning his tenure as Davao mayor and as president. 

In a 50-page ruling, the PTC I unanimously ruled that there were “substantial grounds” to believe that Duterte was responsible for the crimes against humanity of murder and attempted murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty.

Kaufman lamented that the chamber heavily relied on the prosecution’s witnesses, whom he derided as the “very same criminals” responsible for the summary killings. 

Previous reports suggested that key witnesses, though not explicitly divulged by the court, may include former members of the Davao Death Squad, founded and headed by Duterte during his mayoral time in the city, as alleged by the ICC prosecutors. 

Andres argued that there is all the more reason to conclude that the decision was fair and just since it arrived from the testimonies of the “insiders” to the systematic killings.

“The fact that they are insiders and witnesses gives them greater credibility because they know [internal procedure] of [the war on drugs. In fact, some of them are low-level perpetrators,” he stressed. 

ICC records showed that the DDS was comprised of Davao-based police officers and hitmen, who allegedly received monetary rewards from Duterte in exchange for killing criminals, including individuals suspected of drug use or dealings.

DDS members, who were not police, received their incentives in the form of salaries as “ghost employees” at Davao City Hall, according to the prosecution.

Aside from cash gifts, ICC prosecutors also accused former president Duterte of equipping DDS with weapons, ammunition, and logistical support to facilitate the commission of the crime.

ICC prosecutors have argued that while he might not have personally killed the said victims, Duterte, as an indirect co-perpetrator, held top responsibility for ordering, encouraging, or facilitating the killings through his subordinates, like the police and DDS.

According to Andres, preparations for the trial proper alone could take six months to one and a half years, as seen in previous cases of an ICC-accused.

He said the proceedings would be accessible online, though there would be a 30-minute delay to ensure the confidentiality of sensitive testimonies of the witnesses.