THE International Criminal Court (ICC) has encouraged both the prosecution and defense in the case involving former president Rodrigo Duterte to continue exploring agreements on “agreed facts,” describing it as an efficient way to present evidence and reduce the need for lengthy courtroom testimony.
During the first status conference, judges said Rule 68-3 could serve as a “good way of getting the evidence in,” and urged both sides to further identify areas where facts could be formally agreed instead of being fully litigated through witnesses and documents.
Rule 68-3 allows the court to accept certain facts as proven when both parties agree, subject to the chamber’s approval, without requiring full examination in court. The mechanism is intended to streamline proceedings by avoiding the need to prove undisputed matters.
The chamber noted that many elements of the case may already be part of the public record, making them suitable for possible agreement between the prosecution and defense.
Judges said continued discussions on agreed facts could help narrow the trial to contested issues while maintaining efficiency in the proceedings.
Victims’ legal representatives, however, asked the court to ensure they are informed of any agreed facts so they can assess whether these may affect the interests of victims. They cited past ICC practice and argued that notification would allow them to respond within a short period if necessary.
The chamber acknowledged the importance of victims’ participation but stressed that agreed facts are primarily negotiated between the prosecution and defense.
Judges said it is ultimately for the court to decide whether such facts may be accepted, or whether a more complete presentation is required in the interest of justice.
At the same time, the court cautioned against any process that could delay or disrupt agreements reached between the parties, stressing the importance of maintaining efficiency as the case progresses.
New incidents
The status conference also tackled the possibility of adding new incidents to the case, an issue previously left open by the pre-trial chamber, prompting discussion on how far the scope of the proceedings could extend.
Judges said they would set a deadline for any request to include additional incidents, linking it to the broader disclosure schedule. They noted that any expansion must remain structured to ensure the trial does not become unmanageable.
The prosecution said it planned to propose a cutoff by the end of August 2026 for adding new incidents and indicated that any additions would be limited in number.
It said these were being considered in a “conservative” manner and would remain consistent with the existing theory of the case, often linked to current witnesses or newly received material.
Defense counsel, however, raised concerns over what they described as an overly broad framing of incidents, warning that the case could expand into a wide-ranging inquiry if not properly limited.
They argued that the trial must remain manageable and clearly defined, pointing out the need for certainty in the parameters of the charges.
The prosecution maintained that any additional incidents would not significantly alter the structure of the case, while judges said they would provide clearer parameters once formal proposals are submitted.
Trial Chamber III noted that the pre-trial chamber had intentionally left the issue open, and said it would ensure the trial proceeds in an orderly and efficient manner once the scope is clarified.
Disclosure, witness timelines
The ICC also discussed disclosure arrangements, saying that evidence disclosure will continue on a rolling basis under previously agreed deadlines.
The court stressed that all parties must comply with set timelines, and any request for delayed disclosure must be supported by formal applications and justified reasons.
On witness-related matters, the prosecution said it was working toward disclosing the identities of all witnesses by September 2026, including any newly proposed witnesses. It added that any requests to delay disclosure of identities would be subject to formal motions.
Judges emphasized that witness protection measures and confidentiality requests should be filed as early as possible to avoid delays, and said any further updates on sensitive matters could be addressed in private session if necessary.
