ICC allows written testimony vs Duterte

Photos courtesy of the International Criminal Court show former president Rodrigo Duterte during his first in-person appearance before the tribunal since his arrest in March 2025.

Photos / ICC | via Janvic Mateo

MANILA, Philippines — The International Criminal Court has allowed the prosecution to introduce as evidence a prior testimony of one of its witnesses against former president Rodrigo Duterte.

In a 15-page decision released on Friday, the ICC Trial Chamber III granted the prosecution’s first request to introduce the prior written testimony of the witness identified in the filings as “P-1100.”

“[The Chamber] is satisfied that the substance of P-1100’s evidence and the reports he produced appear relevant to the background and context in this case,” the ruling read.

It rejected the defense’s opposition to the request, saying the witness testimony will not be offered as expert evidence and there is no indication the prosecution will use it to support conclusions beyond his personal knowledge.

“The Chamber notes that witnesses often provide conclusions or opinions while testifying in court as well as in written statements,” the judges ruled.

“Although P-1100’s prior recorded testimony contains some opinion statements, the defense will have the opportunity to question the witness, including to test the basis of P-1100’s knowledge, to probe the foundation for the interpretations he offers and to elicit the limits of what he is, and is not, able to say from personal observation,” it added.

Defense lawyer Peter Haynes earlier objected to the introduction of P-1100’s prior witness testimony, saying it “is neither sufficiently relevant nor probative of the facts in dispute in this case.”

In his original request, ICC acting prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang described the testimony as “relevant, reliable and probative.” He also said that it would streamline his in-court testimony during trial.

The judges agreed, but noted that the prosecution’s request for two hours to conduct a supplementary examination is excessive.

“The prosecution shall therefore streamline its questioning so as to complete its examination of P-1100 within one hour,” it added.

In its decision, the judges also authorized the prosecution to introduce five “associate materials” into evidence, although it rejected four others.

“This ruling does not prevent the defense from making use of any of the documents for the purpose of cross-examination,” said the judges.