Duterte remains detained as ICC junks new appeal for release

The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court upheld the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I that Rodrigo Duterte must remain detained as he faces allegations of crimes against humanity.

In its decision on Friday, March 6, the ICC said the Appeals Chamber rejected Duterte’s appeal for interim release, noting that no new information about his health had been presented and that his camp relied only on existing information already assessed by the panel of experts.

The Defense argued that the Pre-Trial Chamber made factual and legal errors and improperly dismissed its report because it came from the defense. It said this affected the ruling, claiming Duterte’s continued pre-trial detention was unjustified. It asked the Appeals Chamber to overturn the decision and order his immediate release.

They argued that their report presents a new fact about Duterte’s health, which constitutes a changed circumstance under Article 60(3) of the Statute.

For their part, the prosecutor urged the Appeals Chamber to reject the appeal, saying the defense overlooked the Pre-Trial Chamber’s key findings and did not demonstrate any error that would have materially influenced the decision.

It stressed that the pre-trial chamber took into account the panel's report in assessing Duterte's health, which provided the "most updated and reliable information" regarding the former president's health condition.

"The Panel’s Reports and the information therein do not amount to a new fact or changed circumstance that would warrant modifying the Initial Decision on Detention under article 60(3) of the Statute. Accordingly, the Defence’s arguments in this regard are rejected," it said in its ruling.

They asserted that, to ensure the fairness of the proceedings, the chamber should not rely on medical reports submitted by a party, nor on the Defense’s interpretations or conclusions, because the Defense lacks the necessary expertise and is itself a party to the case.

The chamber also stressed that the passage of time by itself is not a sufficient reason for release.

"The passage of time alone does not per se lead to the conclusion that circumstances have changed in favour of interim release in the context of a review under article 60(3) of the Statute," it added.