ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 1/16 PT
Original: English No.: ICC-01/21-01/25
Date: 12 June 2025
PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I
Before: Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Presiding Judge
Judge Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou
Judge María del Socorro Flores Liera
SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v. RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE
PUBLIC
With Confidential Annexes A, B and C, ex parte Defence and Prosecution only
Public Redacted Version of the “Urgent Request for Interim Release”, 12 June
2025
Source: Defence for Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 1/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 2/16 PT
Document to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of
the Court to:
☒ The Office of the Prosecutor ☒ Counsel for the Defence
Duterte Defence Team
☒ Legal Representatives of the Victims ☐ Legal Representatives of the
Applicants
☐ Unrepresented Victims ☐ Unrepresented Applicants
(Participation/Reparation)
☐ The Office of Public Counsel for ☐ The Office of Public Counsel for the
Victims Defence
☐ States’ Representatives ☐ Amicus Curiae
REGISTRY
Registrar ☐ Counsel Support Section
Osvaldo Zavala Giler
☐ Victims and Witnesses Unit ☐ Detention Section
☐ Victims Participation and ☐ Other
Reparations Section
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 2/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 3/16 PT
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte respectfully requests, in accordance with Article 60(2)
of the Rome Statute, interim release to [REDACTED].1 The Government of
[REDACTED] has expressed to the Defence its advance and principled
agreement to receive Mr Duterte onto its territory for the term of his interim
release and will act, in accordance with its domestic law, to implement such
conditions as deemed appropriate by Pre-Trial Chamber I.
2. Inter partes discussions on interim release commenced between Counsel and
the Chief Prosecutor, himself, immediately after the initial appearance.
[REDACTED]. [REDACTED].
3. Since then, and since the Chief Prosecutor’s leave of absence, the Prosecution
has confirmed its non-opposition to interim release to [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] State Party on the understanding that the terms and conditions
set out in Annex A to this filing would be met. The terms and conditions
proffered by Mr Duterte for guaranteeing interim release to [REDACTED]
would remain exactly the same bar the obligation to [REDACTED]. Moreover,
the same terms and conditions would include an extra clause providing for Mr
Duterte [REDACTED]. The terms and conditions proffered by the Defence for
interim release to [REDACTED] are set out in Annex B.
4. In light of its agreement of terms and conditions for interim release to
[REDACTED] [REDACTED] State Party, the Defence submits that the
1All references to “Article” and to “Rule” in this submission are to the Rome Statute and the ICC Rules
of Procedure and Evidence, respectively, unless otherwise indicated. This submission is classified, in
conformity with Regulation 23bis(1) of the Regulations of the Court, as confidential ex parte as it
references [REDACTED]. A public redacted version of this submission will be filed forthwith.
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 3/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 4/16 PT
Prosecution accepts that the risk factors enumerated in Article 58(1)(b) may be
neutralised with adequate safeguards.2
5. Mr Duterte is not a flight risk, and custody is not necessary to ensure his
appearance before the Court. As mentioned above, the Government of
[REDACTED] has expressed its willingness to receive Mr Duterte onto its
territory and, accordingly, there is more than good reason to believe that Mr
Duterte would not embarrass his hosts, and the hospitality afforded him, by
violating the terms of his release.
6. Given the nature of this request, which concerns the pre-trial liberty of an
individual of advanced age and [REDACTED], the Defence submits that good
cause is shown for reducing the time limit for a response under Court
Regulation 35(2) and for seeking State observations on an urgent basis under
Court Regulation 51.
2Gicheru, Public Redacted Version of ‘Decision on Mr Gicheru’s Request for Interim Release’, 29 January
2021, ICC-01/09-01/20-90-Conf, ICC-01/09-01/20-90-Red2, 29 January 2021 (“Gicheru Decision”),
paras. 41, 45 (“the Chamber is of the view that these [article 58(1)(b)] risks may be adequately mitigated
by imposing conditions restricting liberty on the basis of rule 119 of the Rules”). See also Bemba,
Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against the decision of Trial Chamber III of
27 June 2011 entitled “Decision on Applications for Provisional Release”, ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red, 19
August 2011 (“Bemba 19 August 2011 Decision”), para. 55 (indicating that conditional release is possible
“where risks enumerated in article 58 (1) (b) exist, but the Chamber considers that these can be
mitigated by the imposition of certain conditions of release”) (internal citations omitted).
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 4/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 5/16 PT
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
7. On 10 February 2025, the Prosecution submitted its application for an arrest
warrant against Mr Duterte.3 Pre-Trial Chamber I issued the arrest warrant on
7 March 2025.4
8. Mr Duterte was arrested upon arrival in Manila on 11 March 2025,5 delivered
into ICC custody on 12 March 2025,6 and, thereafter, admitted to the ICC
Detention Centre on 13 March 2025.7 Mr Duterte was noticeably fatigued
during his initial appearance on 14 March 2025.
9. [REDACTED].8
10. [REDACTED].9 [REDACTED].
11. [REDACTED]. [REDACTED].10
12. On 9 June 2025, in the context of meetings with the Defence – a privilege for
which it is extremely grateful – representatives of the Government of
[REDACTED] communicated its principled agreement to receive Mr Duterte
onto its territory for the term of his interim release and to host him for that term.
To this end, the [REDACTED] has indicated to the Defence that if invited by
the Pre-Trial Chamber to make its observations, it would do so promptly.
3 Situation in the Republic of the Philippines, Public redacted version of “Prosecution’s urgent
application under article 58 for a warrant of arrest against Rodrigo Roa DUTERTE”, 10 February 2025,
ICC-01/21-80-US-Exp, ICC-01/21-80-Red, 13 March 2025 (“Application for Arrest Warrant”).
4 Situation in the Republic of the Philippines, Warrant of Arrest for Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte, ICC-01/21-
83, 7 March 2025.
5 Report of the Registry on the Arrest and Surrender of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte, ICC-01/21-01/25-91-
Conf, 14 March 2025 (“Registry’s Report on Arrest”), para. 11.
6 Registry’s Report on Arrest, paras. 15, 16.
7 Registry’s Report on Arrest, para. 20.
8 Email from Pre-Trial Chamber I Communications, [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]; [REDACTED].
9
[REDACTED].
10 [REDACTED].
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 5/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 6/16 PT
III. APPLICABLE LAW
13. Article 60(2) of the Rome Statute provides that
[a] person subject to a warrant of arrest may apply for interim
release pending trial. If the Pre-Trial Chamber is satisfied that the
conditions set forth in article 58, paragraph 1, are met, the person
shall continue to be detained. If it is not so satisfied, the Pre-Trial
Chamber shall release the person, with or without conditions.
A deliberation on provisional release at the ICC requires a Chamber to engage
in a de novo factual assessment to determine whether the Article 58(1)
conditions justifying detention are met.11 Where a detainee does not pose a risk
under Article 58(1), they must be released; this is not a discretionary decision,
it is absolute.12 Even where Article 58(1)(b) risks may exist, interim release is
still appropriate where those risks can be mitigated by the imposition of certain
conditions of release.13 This is consistent with the international human rights
norm that alternatives be employed as early as possible to ensure pre-trial
detention is a last resort that lasts no longer than necessary.14
11 Said, Decision on the Defence Application for Interim Release of Mahamat Said Abdel Kani and
Contact Restrictions, ICC-01/14-01/21-247-Red, 3 March 2022, para. 19. See also Bemba et al., Judgment
on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 23 January 2015 entitled
“Decision on ‘Mr Bemba’s Request for provisional release’”, ICC-01/05-01/13-970 (OA10), 29 May 2015,
para. 24.
12 Lubanga, Judgment on the appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the decision of Pre-Trial
Chamber I entitled “Décision sur la demande de mise en liberté provisoire de Thomas Lubanga Dyilo”,
ICC-01/04-01/06-824, 13 February 2007 (“Lubanga Appeal Judgment on Interim Release”), para. 134
(“[a]t the outset, the Appeals Chamber deems it appropriate to clarify that the decision on continued
detention or release pursuant to article 60 (2) read with article 58 (1) of the Statute is not of a
discretionary nature. Depending upon whether or not the conditions of article 58 (1) of the Statute
continue to be met, the detained person shall be continued to be detained or shall be released”)
(emphasis added).
13 Gicheru Decision, para. 45 (“while there is no information before the Chamber establishing that the
aforementioned risks under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute no longer exist, the Chamber is of the view
that these risks may be adequately mitigated by imposing conditions restricting liberty on the basis of
rule 119 of the Rules”). See also Bemba 19 August 2011 Decision, para. 55.
14 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 45/110, Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial
Measures, 14 December 1990, principles 6.1 & 6.2.
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 6/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 7/16 PT
14. Assessments on interim release are fact-intensive inquiries that must take into
account an individual’s particular circumstances. Decisions cannot be taken on
the basis of one factor in isolation; all relevant factors must be considered in
their totality.15 Individual circumstances are the primary consideration as to
whether a suspect will appear for trial if released.16 The ICC takes into account
political position, influence, and contacts;17 financial resources;18 acts19 or
assurances of cooperation;20 good behaviour in detention;21 and family ties.22
[READCTED] are also compelling factors militating toward interim release.23
Chambers at the ICC and ad hoc tribunals have been minded to grant interim
15 ICTY, Petković, IT-03-67-R77.1-AR65.1, Decision on Defence appeal against the Trial Chamber’s
decision on provisional release, 25 July 2008, para. 7. See also UNHRC General Comment No. 35, para. 38
(“[i]t should not be the general practice to subject defendants to pretrial detention. Detention pending
trial must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary taking into
account all the circumstances, for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the
recurrence of crime […] Pretrial detention should not be […] without regard to individual
circumstances.”)
16 MICT, Turinabo et al., MICT-18-116-PT, Decision on Marie Rose Fatuma’s Motion for Provisional
Release to Rwanda, 11 February 2019, para. 16.
17 Lubanga, Decision on the Application for the interim release of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-
01/06-586-tEN, 18 October 2006, para. 6. See also Bemba, Decision on Application for Interim Release,
ICC-01/05-01/08-321, 16 December 2008 (“Bemba 16 December 2008 Decision”), para. 36.
18 Mbarushimana, Decision on the “Defence Request for Interim Release”, ICC-01/04-01/10-163, 19 May
2011, para. 46. Bemba 16 December 2008 Decision, para. 36.
19 ICTY, Šainović et al., IT-99-37-AR65, Decision on Provisional Release, 30 October 2002 (“Šainović et al.
Decision”), paras. 6-7, 9.
20 Bemba 16 December 2008 Decision, para. 37 (finding that a statement of cooperation should be
assessed with other factors in coming to a decision on interim release). See also Bemba et al, Decision on
the ‘Demande de mise en liberté provisoire de Maître Aimé Kilolo Musamba’, ICC-01/05-01/13-259, 14
March 2014, para. 29 (finding that a personal undertaking not to abscond should be assessed and
appreciated in light of all relevant factors).
21 Bemba, Public Redacted Version of “Decision on Applications for Provisional Release” of 27 June 2011,
ICC-01/05-01/08-1565-Red, 16 August 2011 (“Bemba 27 June 2011 Decision”), para. 61.
22 Bemba 27 June 2011 Decision, para. 59 (finding that the absence of personal or family connections
suggested a reduced likelihood of returning to the seat of the Court if provisionally released).
23 Gbagbo, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Laurent Koudou Gbagbo against the decision of Pre-Trial
Chamber I of 13 July 2012 entitled “Decision on the ‘Requête de la Défense demandant la mise en liberté
provisoire du président Gbagbo’”, ICC-02/11-01/11-278-Red, 26 October 2012 (“Gbagbo 26 October 2012
Judgment”) [REDACTED]. See Marchesi, D. & Fusari, C., “To Release or not to Release, that is the
Question”: Detention Pending Trial at the International Criminal Court after the Gicheru Case”, EJIL:
Talk!, 8 March 2021 [REDACTED].
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 7/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 8/16 PT
release where the Prosecutor does not oppose the request,24 or where State
guarantees are presented in support of the application.25
15. Applications for interim release should be adjudicated as a matter of urgency.26
IV. SUBMISSIONS
16. The burden for maintaining a suspect’s detention rests on the shoulders of the
Prosecution. It is the Prosecution that must satisfy the Pre-Trial Chamber that
the risk factors identified in Article 58(1)(b) cannot be sufficiently addressed by
terms and conditions of interim release. Where this test is not satisfied, the
Appeals Chamber has held that the suspect must be released.27 The Pre-Trial
Chamber may choose to release the individual, with or without conditions. At
this point, it is necessary to secure a State’s cooperation. Mr Duterte, so it is
respectfully submitted, is now at this stage of the interim release assessment.
17. The Defence has included at Annex B the list of terms and conditions that it
believes would neutralise any possible concern about interim release to
[REDACTED]. These conditions are as rigorous, if not more so, than those that
24 Gicheru Decision, paras. 43 (“the Prosecutor does not oppose Mr Gicheru’s request for interim release
together with conditions restricting liberty”); 44 (“[t]his factor additionally militates in favour of Mr
Gicheru’s request for interim release in the specific circumstances of this case, namely a person having
voluntarily surrendered himself and the Prosecutor not opposing his request for interim release”); p. 18.
25 Bemba et al., Public redacted version of “Defence Observations on the Continued Detention of Aimé
Kilolo Musamba Pursuant to ICC-01/05-01/13-495, Order requesting observations for the purposes of
the periodic review of the state of detention of Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Jean Jacques Mangenda Kabongo
and Fidèle Babala Wandu pursuant to rule 118 (2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence” (ICC-01/05-
01/13- 528-Conf-Exp), ICC-01/05-01/13-528-Red, 24 June 2016 (“Bemba et al. Observations”). See also
Šainović et al. Decision, paras. 12-29; Mrkšić, IT-95-13/1-AR65, Decision on Appeal Against Refusal to
Grant Provisional Release, 8 October 2002 (“Mrkšić Decision”), para. 9.
26 ICC, Chambers Practice Manual (2017), p. 7.
27 Lubanga Decision, para. 134 (“[a]t the outset, the Appeals Chamber deems it appropriate to clarify
that the decision on continued detention or release pursuant to article 60(2) read with article 58(1) of
the Statute is not a discretionary nature. Depending upon whether or not the conditions of article 58(1)
of the Statute continue to be met, the detained person shall be continued to be detained or shall be
released”).
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 8/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 9/16 PT
have been offered at the ICC,28 or accepted by the ICTY, IRMCT, and KSC, for
the purpose of interim release.29 Furthermore, and as previously mentioned,
almost identical terms and conditions have been deemed suitable by the
Prosecution for interim release to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] State Party bar
[REDACTED] (see Annex A).
18. The assessment of Article 58(1)(b) and a decision on interim release, however,
ultimately falls within the remit of the Chamber. To this end, the Defence
makes the following additional submissions.
28 See e.g. Bemba 19 August 2011 Decision, para. 57 (referencing the four conditions the accused had
offered in respect of his interim release). See also Bemba et al., Public redacted version of “Defence
Observations on the Continued Detention of Aimé Kilolo Musamba Pursuant to ICC-01/05-01/13-495,
ICC-01/05-01/13-528-Red, 24 June 2016 (referencing fourteen conditions offered by the accused). See also
Bemba et al, Application for Interim Release of Mr Aimé Kilolo Musamba, ICC-01/05-01/13-42-tENG, 16
December 2013, paras. 64-69 (offering six conditions, including a commitment to comply with court
summonses and to surrender his passport).
29 ICTY: The most common State guarantees offered at the ICTY included undertakings to escort the
accused during transfers to and from the Tribunal, ensure reporting to local police with written
confirmations, and to arrest and report the suspect upon any violations of the release conditions, such
as unauthorised travel, contact with witnesses or co-accused, failure to cooperate with the Tribunal, or
attempts to evade justice. See e.g. Milan Milutinović, Letter from the Federal Government of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia to the ICTY, “Guarantee of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia”, Document no. 762-1/2003, 27 January 2003. The most stringent conditions offered at the
ICTY included daily reporting to a police station; surrender of one’s travel document and passport;
inability to travel beyond the confines of the municipality; consent to occasional, unannounced visits;
and inability to discuss the case with anyone outside the defence. See e.g. Šainović et al. Decision, pp. 15-
17. IRMCT: The most stringent condition ordered at the IRMCT included 24-hour armed surveillance.
See Beara, MICT-15-85-ES.3, Public redacted version of 7 February 2017 Decision of the President of the
early release of Ljubisa Beara, 16 June 2017, para. 52. KSC: The typical conditions for release have
included restrictions on travel, the surrender of all travel and identity documents, and designation of a
fixed residence. Additional conditions have included prohibitions on contact with specific individuals,
restrictions on public statements, and, in Kilaj, the provision of a financial security of 30,000 EUR. See
Kilaj, KSC-BC-2018-01, Public Redacted Version of Corrected Version of Decision on Review of
Detention of Isni Kilaj, 3 May 2024, para. 62.
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 9/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 10/16 PT
i) Mr Duterte will not abscond
19. The risk of flight cannot be based on the hypothetical because a hypothetical
possibility, by its very nature, can never be entirely ruled out.30 Simply showing
the feasibility, ease, or “possibility” of Mr Duterte’s ability to abscond is
insufficient; rather, there must be concrete circumstances demonstrating that
the risk of flight is particularly likely.31
20. Should Mr Duterte be deemed a flight risk by virtue of his political network or
international connections, these contacts and connections must be specifically
identified as well as the manner by which their relationship to Mr Duterte
would render it “more likely” that he would abscond if released. The ICC
Appeals Chamber has held that the Prosecution bears the burden of submitting
sufficient information to establish that the existence of such international
contacts.32
21. The Appeals Chamber has found that [REDACTED],33 [REDACTED].34
Chambers at the ad hoc tribunals have similarly considered and granted
provisional release on humanitarian grounds35 where [REDACTED].36
30 Mbarushimana, Defence Request for Interim Release, ICC-01/04-01/10-86, 30 March 2011, para. 10. See
also ICTY, Hadžihasanović et al., IT-01-47-PT, Decisions granting Provisional Release to Enver
Hadzihasanovic, Mehmed Alagic and Amir Kubura, 19 December 2001, p. 2.
31 ECHR, Stögmüller v. Austria, App. no. 1602/62, Judgment, 10 November 1969, p. 39, para. 15; UNHRC,
Hill v. Spain, CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, 2 April 1997 (“Hill v. Spain”), para. 12.3.
32 Lubanga Appeal Judgment on Interim Release, para. 136.
33 Gbagbo 26 October 2021 Judgment, para. 87. See also Al Hassan, Public redacted version of ‘Decision
on the Defence request for interim release’, ICC-01/12-01/18-786-Red, 29 May 2020 (“Al Hassan
Decision”), para. 80.
34 Al Hassan Decision, para. 80.
35 ICTY, [REDACTED].
36 ICTY, [REDACTED], [REDACTED]. See also [REDACTED], [REDACTED]; [REDACTED],
[REDACTED], [REDACTED](“REDACTED”).
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 10/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 11/16 PT
22. Mr Duterte is [REDACTED], as substantiated and corroborated by
[REDACTED].37 [REDACTED] – [REDACTED]38 – [REDACTED].
[REDACTED],39 [REDACTED].40
23. In light of the above, it would be unreasonable to suggest that Mr Duterte has
the [REDACTED] ability to abscond.
24. Furthermore, were he to abscond from [REDACTED], not only would he
embarrass his hosts but as one of the most recognised political figures in the
world, he would be easily found and returned to ICC custody without any
prospect of future release. This is not a realistic risk for a [REDACTED] 80-year-
old [REDACTED].
25. Finally, Mr Duterte’s commitment to returning for trial when ordered, even in
the absence of any state guarantees, carries significant weight in militating
against a finding of flight risk.41 This is amplified, and the risk of flight further
depreciated, where State guarantees are presented in support of the
application, agreeing to undertake various obligations in cooperation with the
Court.42 In light of [REDACTED]’s support for Mr Duterte’s application for
interim release, as well as its indicated willingness to implement such
conditions as may be imposed by the Pre-Trial Chamber that are in accordance
with its domestic laws, there can be no objective, concrete finding of flight risk.
37 [REDACTED].
38 [REDACTED].
39 [REDACTED].
40 [REDACTED].
41 MICT, Turinabo et al., MICT-18-116-PT, Decision on Marie Rose Fatuma’s Motion for Provisional
Release to Rwanda, 11 February 2019, paras. 15-17 (granting provisional release after holding that “[t]he
Prosecution argues that Fatuma has not provided any evidence indicating that she will appear for trial;
however, I observe that she has committed to returning for trial when ordered and is willing to be
provisionally released subject to conditions under Rule 68(C) of the Rules”).
42 See e.g. Bemba et al. Observations, paras. 5, 9, 11. See also, Šainović et al. Decision, paras. 12-29; Mrkšić
Decision, para. 9.
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 11/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 12/16 PT
ii) Mr Duterte will not imperil proceedings if released
26. An abstract analysis of the risk – acknowledging merely the possibility of a risk
‘in principle’ – without examining whether, in this specific case, Mr Duterte has
actually taken steps to contact or exercise pressure on potential witnesses does
not pass Article 58(1)(b)(ii) muster. The Defence, even if it were to bear the
burden of proof, cannot be obliged to prove a negative. This assessment must
be based on relevant and concrete evidence,43 as opposed to abstract risks44 or
conjecture.45 The onus is on the Prosecution to demonstrate that Mr Duterte
would – and not just that he could – engage in witness intimidation or otherwise
obstruct the conduct of the proceedings. This interpretation is bolstered by the
clear language of Article 58(1)(b) that the suspect’s arrest appears “necessary”
to preclude obstruction or endangerment of the investigation or proceedings.
27. In any event, balancing the totality of relevant factors, Mr Duterte does not pose
a risk under Article 58(1)(b)(ii). In its submissions [REDACTED], the
Prosecution has not cited recent and substantial security threats to witnesses or
shown that these witnesses are facing a “dire security situation.”46 The charges
against Mr Duterte have not been confirmed, and the case is not in a sufficiently
advanced stage of disclosure – quite the opposite. Furthermore, Mr Duterte’s
43 ECHR, Becciev v. Moldova, App. no. 9190/03, Judgment, 4 October 2005, para. 59 (“[t]he danger of the
accused’s hindering the proper conduct of the proceedings cannot be relied upon in abstracto, it has to
be supported by factual evidence”).
44 ICTY, Haradinaj et al., IT-04-84-A, Decision on Lahi Brahimaj’s Application for Provisional Release, 25
May 2009, para. 14 (“[t]he Appeals Chamber considers that an assessment of danger posed to victims,
witnesses or others cannot be made in the abstract and that there is no substantiated indication from
the Prosecution that Brahimaj will seek to intimidate witnesses”).
45 Hill v. Spain, para. 12.3 (“[t]he mere conjecture of a State party that a foreigner might leave its
jurisdiction if released on bail does not justify an exception to the rule laid down in article 9, paragraph
3, of the Covenant”).
46 Said Interim Release Application, paras. 32-35. See also Said, Prosecution Response to Defence Appeal
Brief, ICC-01/14-01/21-268-Red, 5 April 2022, para. 7.
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 12/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 13/16 PT
access to confidential information, let alone his ability to weaponise it, is and
has been negligible [REDACTED].47 Put simply, [REDACTED].
28. In any event, release into [REDACTED], coupled with the various conditions
to which Mr Duterte is prepared to agree, ensures Mr Duterte is well removed
from the scope of, and investigations into, the alleged crimes.
iii) Mr Duterte will not continue to commit crimes
29. The Prosecution referred to this possibility, in passing, only once in its Arrest
Warrant Application.48 It predicated its position on a single newspaper article,
by a single author, in respect of a single House Quad Committee hearing49 that
took place in 2024, long after Mr Duterte had left office. The article allegedly
attributed to Mr Duterte a promise to double his drug war kills if re-elected
mayor. Nothing else was cited nor any evidence provided.
30. No real or concrete risk exists under Article 58(1)(b)(iii) that would justify Mr
Duterte’s continued pre-trial detention. To its credit, the Prosecution has
acknowledged that even this risk may be addressed by virtue of its negotiations
with the Defence in the context of [REDACTED] [REDACTED] State Party.
31. In any event, not only have the alleged crimes not continued despite his election
victory on 13 May 2025, Mr Duterte does not seek interim release to
[REDACTED] or to [REDACTED]. On the contrary, his request for release into
[REDACTED] and his complete abstinence from any media statements since
his arrest evinces his intention to divorce himself from politics and governance.
47 Id.
48 Application for Arrest Warrant, para. 110.
49 See PHL-OTP-00015374 (https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/11/15/2400377/mayor-i-will-
double-drug-war-kills-duterte).
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 13/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 14/16 PT
32. It should not be forgotten that the crimes imputed to Mr Duterte occurred
between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019. More than six years have passed
since the temporal scope of these crimes. The possibility of “continuing with
the commission of [ ] crime[s]” within the Court’s jurisdiction is highly abstract.
Mr Duterte is no longer the President of the Philippines, and does not command
the same influence or power he is said to have abused during the period of the
alleged crimes. He no longer holds the type of office that the Prosecution argues
allowed him to order and to implement the policies that form the basis for the
ICC arrest warrant. Any risk is totally neutralised by virtue of Mr Duterte’s
affirmation, in the annexed terms and conditions, that he will refrain from
public engagement, office, or communications with persons outside his family.
He has also agreed to abstain from use of the internet or any electronic devices,
such as a mobile phone.
33. Given these restrictions and considering that he will be residing well outside
the geographic scope of the alleged crimes, the likelihood of Mr Duterte posing
a risk under Article 58(1)(b)(iii) is non-existent.
iv) Humanitarian factors militate in favour of interim release
34. While the ICC’s statutory framework does not explicitly include humanitarian
considerations as factors in interim release, the ICC has, in practice, granted
provisional release for humanitarian reasons.50 This is consistent with the
practice at the ad hoc tribunals, which frequently considered and accepted
humanitarian concerns in decisions on provisional release.51 Indeed, ICTY
Chambers were empowered to consider “exceptionally compelling
50 Bemba, Decision on the Defence’s Urgent Request concerning Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba’s Attendance of
his Father’s Funeral, ICC-01/05-01/08-437-Red, 3 July 2009. See also Bemba, Decision on the Defence
Request for Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba to attend his Stepmother’s Funeral, ICC-01/05/01/08-1099-Red, 12
January 2011.
51 Humanitarian grounds have long been the most commonly-accepted reason at the ICTY for the
granting of provisional release, well before the term’s incorporation into Rule 65 (B) in 2011.
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 14/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 15/16 PT
humanitarian reasons” where the conditions for release were otherwise
unmet.52
35. The Defence submits that compelling humanitarian grounds similarly exist in
the present case. Mr Duterte is 80 years old and [REDACTED]. [REDACTED].
[REDACTED] – [REDACTED] – [REDACTED]. [REDACTED].
36. [REDACTED], on the other hand, represents a stable and suitable environment
in keeping with Mr Duterte’s [REDACTED]. Its location [REDACTED].
[REDACTED]. [REDACTED].
37. [REDACTED] is also at the forefront of [REDACTED] cooperation in matters of
international justice and is committed to the humane defence of internationally
recognised liberties. Its agreement to host Mr Duterte demonstrates its
commitment to actively cooperate with the Court, while simultaneously
ensuring a balance between the right to a fair trial and accountability.
V. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT
38. Mr Duterte does not meet any of the conditions to warrant further pre-trial
detention as provided in Article 58(1)(b). He does not pose an objective risk of
flight, nor is his arrest necessary to ensure the integrity of the investigations or
to preclude the continued commission of crimes. He must, as a result, be
immediately released from ICC custody.
39. [REDACTED] has affirmed its principled willingness to cooperate with the
Court, and to accept Mr Duterte onto its territory for the duration of his interim
52 [REDACTED].
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 15/16 12 June 2025
ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red 12-06-2025 16/16 PT
release and enforce conditions of release. It has also affirmed that it will make
its prompt observations, should it be invited to do so by the Pre-Trial Chamber.
40. As such, the Defence will respectfully REQUEST that the Pre-Trial Chamber
order Mr Duterte’s immediate release into [REDACTED] under any conditions
as deemed appropriate.
41. The Defence also respectfully REQUESTS that the deadline for any responses
or observations be shortened in light of [REDACTED].
Nicholas Kaufman
Counsel for Rodrigo Roa Duterte
Dated this 12 day of June 2025
At [REDACTED], [REDACTED]
No. ICC-01/21-01/25 16/16 12 June 2025
