THE Office of the Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has joined Prosecutor Karim Khan in opposing Manila’s bid to stop the probe being conducted by the international tribunal into the alleged extrajudicial killings and other abuses committed by the police in the implementation of the Duterte administration’s violent crackdown against the illegal drugs trade.
Paolina Massidda, principal counsel at the OPCV, asked the ICC Appeals Chamber to junk the Philippine government’s plea for lack of merit.
Massidda urged the Appeals Chambe to uphold the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) to resume the investigation into the supposed human rights violations.
Massidda argued that junking the PTC ruling would affect the victims’ right to justice and reparation.
“In fact, depending on their resolution, victims may be denied the opportunity to uncover the truth, present their views and concerns throughout the proceedings, ensure that those responsible are held accountable, and ultimately claim reparation,” Massidda said in a submission to Appeals the Chamber dated April 18.
The move comes after Khan rejected point-by-point the arguments presented by the Philippines in its motion seeking to suspend the probe.
Echoing Khan’s arguments, Massidda said the Philippine government failed to demonstrate or show evidence that the PTC committed any error of fact or law in the assailed decision.
Khan has insisted that the PTC was correct in ruling that the ICC still has jurisdiction over the alleged crimes committed in the Philippines despite Manila’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute that created the court in 2019 because the country was still a party to the Statute when the alleged abuses and extrajudicial killings were carried out.
Khan said the scope of the probe covers alleged crimes from November 1, 2011 to March 16, 2019. The Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC took effect on March 17, 2019.
Massidda said the ICCC still “retains jurisdiction over the present situation” and that “the arguments raised by Manila that the tribunal no longer has the authority to conduct a probe as it is no longer a party to the Statute are irrelevant.”
“If a State’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction was to be determined ‘at the point in the time in which said jurisdiction is triggered,’ a State Party could easily evade its responsibilities by notifying its withdrawal as soon as the Court turns its attention to crimes committed,” Massidda said.
‘DISENGAGING’
Meanwhile in Manila, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has rebuffed a request made by the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights to serve as a go-between for the upper chamber and the ICC in its ongoing hearings into a proposed resolution seeking to defend former President Duterte from the probe.
The DFA, in a letter dated April 17, told the committee chairperson Sen. Francis Tolentino it cannot facilitate the Senate’s request to invite ICC officials to attend the hearing because of the earlier pronouncement of President Marcos Jr. that the country is already “disengaging” from the ICC.
The President made the remarks last month after the ICC Appeals Chamber ruled against the Philippines’ request to suspend the investigation on the Duterte administration’s war on drugs pending a ruling on Manila’s main appeal against the resumption of the investigation.
“In view of the foregoing, the DFA respectfully recommends that the Senate committee send the invitations directly to the intended invitees, Karim Khan A.A. KC, and Fatou Bomm Bensouda,” the DFA letter said.
However, the DFA said it had already informed the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights and the Hague Academy of International Law about the Senate’s request for their participation in the hearing.
Tolentino’s panel was supposed to hear the resolutions defending Duterte last Wednesday, but it was deferred due to the DFA’s refusal to facilitate their request.
