PROSECUTORS at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have asked judges to admit the prior recorded testimony and written expert report of four witnesses in the case against former president Rodrigo Duterte, saying the move would shorten court proceedings while preserving the defense’s opportunity to question them.
In separate public redacted filings dated Oct. 23, the Office of the Prosecutor asked Trial Chamber III to admit the expert report of witness P-1400, along with 15 associated items, and the earlier testimony of three other witnesses identified as P-1155, P-1156 and P-1157.
The requests invoke Rule 68(3) of the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which allows the court to admit prior recorded testimony under specified conditions, including the witness’s presence in court, confirmation of the accuracy of the statements and the opportunity for the parties and judges to question the witness.
The prosecution said the requests would reduce the time needed for direct examination without depriving Duterte’s defense team of its right to challenge the evidence.
In the application involving P-1400, prosecutors said adopting the expert’s written report and limiting live direct examination to two hours would save about three hours of court time. The witness’s direct examination would otherwise take an estimated five hours.
The original application was filed confidentially on Oct. 21 before a redacted version was made public two days later.
Prosecutors argued that the report is relevant, reliable and probative; falls within the witness’s area of expertise; and would assist the judges in assessing the case.
They said it was dated, internally consistent, supported by documents and voluntarily provided with the understanding that it could be used as evidence.
The prosecution also maintained that the request would not prejudice Duterte’s rights, noting that the defense had agreed in principle to the introduction of expert reports under Rule 68(3).
The defense, victims’ legal representatives and the chamber would retain the opportunity to question P-1400, prosecutors said.
In a separate application, the prosecution sought to introduce the prior recorded testimony of P-1155, P-1156 and P-1157, who provide evidence concerning murders charged under Count 3 of the case. Details of the incident covered by the application were redacted in the public filing.
The original confidential application was submitted on Oct. 22, with the redacted version made public on Oct. 23. The prosecution described it as its fifth application under Rule 68(3).
Prosecutors said P-1155 and P-1156 provide direct evidence concerning the killings and Duterte’s alleged individual criminal responsibility, including his knowledge and intent.
The testimony also relates to the contextual elements of crimes against humanity and the prosecution’s allegation that suspected criminals were targeted for “neutralizing” through violent means, including murder.
The prosecution did not disclose the estimated time savings in the public filing, with the relevant figures redacted.
It also sought permission to conduct focused live supplementary examinations of the three witnesses, acknowledging that the chamber had indicated such questioning should generally be limited to about an hour, or somewhat longer for a particularly significant witness.
Prosecutors argued that P-1155 and P-1156 warranted longer examinations because of the particular relevance of their evidence.
The prosecution said the three witnesses’ statements were obtained during its regular investigation in accordance with Article 55 of the Rome Statute and Rule 112 of the court’s rules.
According to the filing, the witnesses were informed that their interviews were voluntary and subsequently confirmed that they had answered freely and had no complaints about the process.
Prosecutors further argued that the statements were internally consistent and corroborated accounts given by other witnesses.
They said Duterte’s defense would not be unfairly disadvantaged, noting that it had known since Aug. 31 that the three witnesses would be called under Rule 68(3). The defense would be able to cross-examine them, while the chamber and the Common Legal Representatives of Victims could also ask questions.
The applications seek to streamline the presentation of evidence as the prosecution advances its case against Duterte, who faces charges of crimes against humanity in connection with killings allegedly committed during his anti-drug campaign.
The requests remain subject to the chamber’s decision. Admission of the prior statements would not, by itself, determine the credibility or weight the judges ultimately assign to the evidence.
