MANILA, Philippines — The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Wednesday heard competing proposals on when the trial of former president Rodrigo Duterte should begin, with suggested dates ranging from September 2026 to January next year, as parties raised concerns over disclosure timelines, defense preparedness, and interpretation capacity at the opening of the status conference of Duterte's trial at The Hague, Netherlands on Wednesday.
Judge Joanna Korner, head of the the Pre-Trial Chamber, III considered submissions from the prosecution, defense, victims’ representatives, and the court registry on the proposed commencement of trial in the case against Duterte.
The Office of the Prosecutor proposed a Nov. 30 , 2026 start date, saying it required additional time to complete disclosure and other preparatory tasks before trial could proceed. Prosecutors said they had reviewed 11 key tasks necessary before commencement and concluded that a September 30 completion target for preparatory work was feasible, though demanding.
The prosecution said the proposed timetable was not arbitrary but based on an assessment of the earliest workable schedule consistent with efficiency and proper case preparation.
“It will not be easy. It will require us to work hard and efficiently,” the prosecution said, adding that more time would reduce the risk of errors and improve coordination among counsel, particularly given recent changes in the defense team.
Legal representatives for victims, however, urged an earlier start on September 30, arguing that the proceedings should move forward without unnecessary delay. They said they had consulted their clients and were prepared to proceed within that timeframe.
“At the moment, November 30 seems to them a reasonable period of time. January is too long,” victims’ counsel Paolina Massidda said, while also indicating that the case could begin earlier with witnesses who are able to testify in English, with interpretation issues addressed in parallel.
The defense declined to commit to a fixed start date, citing unresolved preliminary issues, including questions regarding the accused’s fitness to stand trial. Defense counsel Peter Haynes stressed that there should be a sufficient gap between the end of disclosure and the start of proceedings, traditionally at least three months, to ensure adequate preparation.
Haynes argued that if disclosure concluded by the end of September, a trial start closer to late December—or potentially January 2027—would better align with established practice and avoid compressing preparation time.
Interpretation capacity emerged as another key issue. The ICC Registry said it was still working to recruit and train interpreters for languages expected to be used by witnesses, including Philippine languages such as Tagalog, alongside English.
The Registry explained that while English-language testimony could allow proceedings to begin earlier, full witness hearings would require properly trained simultaneous interpreters. They also noted that opening stages of the trial could proceed before full interpretation capacity was completed, but stressed the need for adequate preparation time.
Registry representatives added that outreach considerations were being taken into account, but emphasized that priority remained ensuring accurate interpretation for the accused and witnesses.
Judge Korner acknowledged the differing positions, noting the need to balance efficiency with fairness and preparedness. She said the chamber would consider all submissions before issuing a determination on the proposed start date at the conclusion of the status conference.
Korner opened the first status conference, asking both prosecution and defense to have a strong emphasis on procedural discipline, urging all parties to keep legal arguments focused, efficient, and strictly tied to the issues before the court.
Korner said the status conference marked the beginning of the trial’s structured case management phase and was intended to ensure that proceedings move forward in an orderly and efficient manner, in line with reforms aimed at improving the performance of the ICC.
She cited recommendations from the Independent Expert Review published in 2020, which called for enhanced efficiency and effectiveness across the court’s operations, noting that all organs of the ICC have since adopted measures to strengthen case management practices.
Central to her remarks was a reminder that the success of a complex international trial depends on discipline from all participants—prosecution, defense, victims’ representatives, registry officials, and judges.
“Efficiency and effectiveness is dependent on actions taken by all parties to a trial—the prosecution, the defence, the victims’ representatives, the registry, and the judges—cooperating procedurally,” Korner said.
She stressed that procedural cooperation must not be mistaken for any dilution of fairness or independence in the proceedings, nor for any reduction in the prosecution’s burden of proof or the rights of the accused.
Korner outlined the core objectives of a criminal trial, including ensuring the acquittal of the innocent and conviction of the guilty, safeguarding fair treatment of all parties, and upholding the rights of the accused under Article 67 of the Rome Statute, while also recognizing the interests of victims and witnesses.
A key focus of her intervention was the need to curb unnecessary or prolonged legal exchanges, which she said can slow down proceedings in complex cases.
Korner urged parties to ensure that legal arguments remain strictly relevant to the issues before the court, signaling that repetitive or overly extended submissions would not advance the efficiency of the trial.
She also emphasized early identification of the real issues in dispute, greater reliance on agreed facts where possible, and a clear and concise presentation of evidence.
“Presentation of evidence, whether disputed or not, must take place in the shortest and clearest way,” she said, adding that this approach was particularly important in lengthy international proceedings.
The judge further encouraged parties to resolve procedural matters between themselves before bringing disputes to the bench, particularly on issues such as disclosure. She said requests should first be discussed by the parties, with the prosecution expected to provide clear reasons when refusing disclosure.
While setting these expectations, Korner noted that the chamber had received constructive engagement from all sides ahead of the status conference and expressed confidence in the professionalism of counsel involved.
She added that while the court preferred cooperation over intervention, it would not hesitate to exercise its case management powers if necessary to ensure efficiency and fairness in the proceedings.
