ICC tackles schedule, expected evidence in Duterte’s case before trial - Part 1

Added: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]seated. We are.

[00:00:08]>> Yes. Good morning all. Uh can you call case please? Uh madame distro.

[00:00:16]>> Good morning madame president your honors. Situation in the republic of the Philippines in the case of the prosecutor versus Rodrigo Roa Duterte.

[00:00:25]Case reference ICC 01210125.

[00:00:29]And for the record, we are in open session.

[00:00:35]>> Yes. Could we have the appearances, please? Prosecution first.

[00:00:41]>> Good morning, Madame President. Good morning, your honors. Good morning to everybody in the room. Uh today we are Edward Jeremy, Robin Croft, Hannah Allen, Arasmus Levelville Jones, Emma Norton, our case manager, James Mariti, and Maria Berdenova, and I'm Julian Nichols.

[00:01:02]Thank you.

[00:01:04]>> Thank you, Mr. Nichols. The defense, please.

[00:01:07]>> Uh good morning, your honor. Um Kate Gibson my co-consel Alex Decei a legal assistant and assistant councel sundrean desenna and I'm Peter Haynes it's a pleasure to be here um Mr. H will you sit down um just so that the public understand I think that u Mr. 30 uh asked to be uh excused uh from the hearing.

[00:01:33]>> Indeed, that's correct, Ron.

[00:01:34]>> Thank you.

[00:01:36]Uh yes. And fin uh sorry, not finally, no, the um the representatives of the victims, please.

[00:01:44]>> Good morning, Madame President. Your honors, the common legal representative of victims team is composed today of Mr. Joel Bhuya at my right. Behind us, Mr. Orcholon Ranset and Miss Ludovikucho legal officers and on the other bench Miss Angraosski legal officer and I am Paulina.

[00:02:05]>> Thank you very much Miss Mida. Um and the registry please >> Mr. Dus. Thank you Madame President.

[00:02:13]Good morning your honors. For the registry this morning by my side we have Fatya Balas who is the jurist from the VWS section. There is Natalie Vagnes who is a coordinator within my office.

[00:02:26]There's Mari Lucas who's a jurist for the def detention. And also for my office uh accompanied for more specific matters if you seek to delve more deeply there isma Yakobi who is the chief of the LSS. There's Fidik Ambak for the head of the VPs and there's also Rod Rastan who is the head of judicial corporation support section. and I am of course Mark Dubis, director of the division of judicial services and I am representing here the registar this morning. Thank you.

[00:03:01]>> Yes, thank you very much uh Mr. Dubis.

[00:03:03]Um, as everybody knows, this is the first status conference in this case.

[00:03:09]Um, and, uh, the first proper hearing, I suppose you could say, of for the trial.

[00:03:15]And, uh, there are a few things I want to say before we move on to, um, the agenda.

[00:03:23]As everybody knows, um, the independent expert review published in 2020 stated that one of the task of the experts who had been appointed was, and I quote, to enhance by the making of recommendations the performance, efficiency, and effectiveness of the court and the Rome statute as a Since its publication, all organs of the court have put in place measures designed to achieve those obvious and lordable goals.

[00:04:06]In respect of trials, efficiency and effectiveness is dependent on actions taken by all parties to a trial.

[00:04:17]uh the prosecution, the defense, the victim's representatives, the registry, and last but not least, of course, the judges.

[00:04:29]It depends on them, all of them cooperating procedurally.

[00:04:35]Such cooperation does not in any way affect the fairness of a trial uh nor the onus on the prosecution to prove its case nor does it encroach on the rights of the accused.

[00:04:52]It is a truism, but one which bears repetition to state that the overriding objectives of a criminal trial for judges in particular are first the acquitt of the innocent and the conviction of the guilty.

[00:05:11]Second, dealing with the prosecution and defense fairly.

[00:05:17]Third, recognizing the rights of the accused, particularly those under article 67 and any other rights which are gerain to a trial.

[00:05:29]respecting the interests of witnesses and last but certainly not least respecting the interests of victims.

[00:05:41]In order to achieve efficiency and expedition of a trial, there must be uh amongst other matters first an early identification of the real issues in the case and I emphasize that and we'll return to it later in this status conference.

[00:06:04]Proper use of agreed fact between parties.

[00:06:09]Presentation of evidence, whether disputed or not, must take place in the shortest and clearest way. That is particularly important in this trial.

[00:06:24]Avoidance of unnecessary and lengthy legal arguments. We encourage the participants to cooperate in these goals and generally between themselves.

[00:06:37]uh to give but one example. Any requests for disclosure uh should be discussed between the parties before rulings are sought from the judges.

[00:06:49]It is incumbent upon the prosecution to give proper reasons if they are going to refuse a request for disclosure.

[00:06:58]Finally, let me say this.

[00:07:01]Um we are delighted to see from the submissions that have already been made that the parties and um participants are represented by highly experienced council on all sides and we are heartened as I say by the responses which we've received to theuling order for this status conference.

[00:07:25]Uh those responses show that cooperation exists and we are optimistic that will be it will be unnecessary for the trial chamber to enforce compliance with directions made in the exercise of our incon not inconsiderable powers of case management which we will employ to achieve efficiency and a fair trial.

[00:07:53]So having said that um can we move straight away to the various issues uh in the order in which they were set out.

[00:08:06]Um firstly um obviously is the start of trial. Um there appear to be a number of different uh suggestions.

[00:08:18]Um the office of the prosecutor um says the 30th of November.

[00:08:25]Uh the defense doesn't want to give any date at all until um matters are resolved uh such as um the accused um fitness.

[00:08:41]Um the legal representative of the victims wants beginning of September and the registry wants January uh because of interpretation. Um which I will come back to. Um okay. Um does anybody want to say anything more?

[00:09:00]Um there is actually one matter Mr. Les yours is uh your date start date of of the end of November is is because you say it'll take you until September to um complete disclosure. Is that right?

[00:09:18]>> Thank you, honors. Um you'll you'll find this at paragraphs 3 to five of our submissions. What I can say is that we've taken a hard look at the uh I believe 11 tasks in paragraph 5 that we need to fulfill um in a reasonable time before the start of trial. And so in picking the September 30 date uh that that was not random. It was made in the spirit of efficiency and expedition that that you have highlighted and we believe that is a date that we can meet that will not be easy to meet. um it it will require us to uh work hard and efficiently and then we picked and of course it's up to your chambers entirely what we thought was the the soonest reasonable start date after that. Um but we really do think we need that time in order to accomplish all of those different things um different tasks that that we need uh to do. And we think that um if we have that time, I mean, I know everybody always argues this, but ultimately the trial will be more efficient um because we won't make mistakes and we'll have everything done properly and disclosed properly. Um some of that, you know, we have new counsel now and Mr. Haynes and I have done a trial before and we know each other. So, I I do think we'll be able to cooperate.

[00:10:55]Um and uh as as you say, we haven't had a chance. We've met and said hello and had a coffee, but we haven't sat down yet to really discuss what can be agreed on, what can be stipulated to. Um so hopefully that will make it more efficient. But um you know uh we we've um calculated in that um date of 30th September that the August break doesn't exist essentially. Um and that we will keep going through that period. That that does not include everybody taking off for three weeks. Um, so I I can't really add more and I'm actually going on too long to be efficient, but I rely on our submissions and we really think that is um the date, the time we need.

[00:11:45]>> Yeah. Well, okay, Mr. Nichols, I mean, I I I see that. I mean, you're actually assisted in one sense by the fact there has been a change of council um because that obviously causes um uh well, you're assisted in many senses, I feel um but uh because of the need for them to get to grips with the case. However, can I all right can I emphasize however um that you really must do things with expedition? Um we weren't madly impressed by the delay in asking um for the um matters in your last motion as you saw. Um so um we'd like you to get on with it. All right, Mr. Haynes, >> could I make just one additional point?

[00:12:31]I'm sorry, didn't um just that with this schedule we proposed um other than one case, it would be the fastest from confirmation to trial. I know that doesn't mean that those other cases that that should be the measure, but we were we were thinking in terms of making this as as quickly as we could and I I will uh you're correct of course about the motion you referred to and I can address that later. Um that that was our mistake. Uh we own that. Um we there was a miscommunication where we uh believed that those items were not um in custody.

[00:13:11]Um but I will address that if if you wish later.

[00:13:14]>> Well, no, I think I think we've given you the warning, so that'll do. Um Mr. Haynes, uh is there anything you want to add or say? I appreciate >> um Yes. Uh I think what's important for us is that um whatever trial date uh your honor fixes upon you do not as it were concertina uh the gap between that date and the end of disclosure which has traditionally uh been no less than three months. Um and so if uh the prosecution's aspirations are to conclude that and its other tasks by the end of September, then that would uh mitigate in favor of a start date in the middle of the uh Christmas vacation, the 30th of December, which would be 3 months later, which has a certain synergy with the other ball in the air, which is the interpretation, which doesn't appear to be ready until January. So that would all tend to suggest um that this start of the trial could not be this year. Um we will be ready for whenever you want it to start. But our anxiety is that that should not be a date which leaves us with perhaps one or two months after the end of prosecution disclosure. It should be a minimum of three.

[00:14:42]>> Um yeah but there are pressing reasons.

[00:14:46]um which um mandate that we really should um start this trial as soon as possible which is basically um the the health of your um lake land um and I appreciate the interpretation for I'm going to come to that in a moment but um all right Mr. I've I've got your your non submission >> for the avoidance of of of being uh unclear.

[00:15:15]Um if the start date is going to be this year, then Mr. Nichols and his team are going to have to do a little better.

[00:15:22]>> Yeah. Yes. Well, we'll we'll come to that. Right. Um yes. Uh Msina, your your submissions are it should start as soon as possible. I've got that.

[00:15:34]>> Thank you, Madame President.

[00:15:36]30 seconds of your time. I don't have to stress the obvious here. Victims would like this trial to start tomorrow.

[00:15:43]That's as simple as such. However, after the submission of the parties, we had further consultation with our clients.

[00:15:50]They are amenable to start this trial.

[00:15:53]30 of November seems to them at the moment still a reasonable period of time. January 2027, no, for them it's too long. and going to what my learn colleague was saying. Well, we can start the trial already in November and witnesses who can speak English. This will allow to continue to start and continue the trial and solve the issue of interpretation starting in June January 2027. Thank you very much.

[00:16:24]>> Yes. Okay, Mr. to do. This is the same problem that arose um in Alrakman that um you don't have interpreters ready as yet um to deal with uh the two languages that are apparently going to be spoken by some of the witnesses.

[00:16:45]However, as we did in Al Rakman, um, and as Masida has, uh, Miss Masida has pointed out, um, it is possible to start the trial with witnesses who only speak English. And my understanding is that it's not as complicated as finding interpreters as it was in the Alraman trial in a a language that was um only spoken in a small part of Sudan.

[00:17:13]Um because presumably um as court proceedings in the Philippines are all in English, there must be interpreters there. Um and um equally field interpreters who can be trained more speedily I would have thought than was possible in the Araban trial.

[00:17:39]>> Mr. Dris, thank you Madame President.

[00:17:41]Yes, I take note of what you've just uh clarified in addition to what my colleague Miss Msida just said. Indeed, there are a number of uh items we need to look at here. Who are we interpreting for specifically? We're interpreting for the witnesses today. We have a number of witnesses for which uh we know that they will testify in English. We have been warned that there are some witnesses that will be speaking in two other languages, languages of the Philippines. So, we need to find, if possible, interpreters who could speak these two languages.

[00:18:23]That's very important for us. To date, we do not have knowledge of who these witnesses are.

[00:18:31]So as you have just said we're going to try and recruit people principally from the field that is field interpreters but of course we do have to train them because field interpreters working out in the field work in the consecutive or in whispering shushage form but we are going to be using simultaneous interpret interpretation. So they need to be prepared and trained not into English fine but into the other languages such as Tagalog, those languages that are used in the Philippines. But of course it is important also for the witnesses and for the population that outreach is conducted with regard to the trial that is ongoing in the H. So it is important for those out in the Philippines to be able to follow the trial that is ongoing here in the Hague. This is something that we are always attentive to, but it is not our top priority. Our top priority is the language of the accused and the languages of the witnesses.

[00:19:42]And this is why with regard to what has just been said, yes, were we to go ahead with the opening statements if you wanted to have these at the end of November or at the end of the year.

[00:20:00]Yes indeed, we could find solutions for interpretation for a number of hearing days for those opening statements. But if we're talking about bringing witnesses to testify on a regular basis, then we need to be properly equipped in terms of interpretation booths.

[00:20:24]and that is why we would like for the trial to commence at a later date. I'm also very aware of the fact that we will need to adapt the hearings according to other criteria that you will determine yes or no to do with the accused and this will enable us to save time. So for example, if we have shorter hearings, we would maybe be able to improve the training terms and time, but that would only apply to maybe a month or a month and a half in terms of time. So for us, it would be better to start after a six-month period. That is to say, six months after today.

[00:21:12]Yes, thank you. Um well, as I say, um we're going to consider all these matters. We'll give um the date that we proposed to start at at the end of the status conference um orally and we've heard all the submissions.

[00:21:27]All right. Uh can we move then please to the next item on the agenda unless there's anything anybody else wants to say? No. And that's the number of witnesses.

[00:21:42]Um you um the prosecution, Mr. Nicholls, um it's paragraph six. um thinks that you want to uh the prosecution intends to call 60 to 70 witnesses um including uh approximately 31 insider witnesses.

[00:22:12]Is that right?

[00:22:15]>> Yes, your honor. I think uh >> I'm looking at paragraph six submissions.

[00:22:20]>> Yes. Um I think we can rely on our submissions for this question unless you have any other uh followup.

[00:22:30]>> No. Um yes. Well, only only this while I'm while we're on the topic of witnesses. Um we'll set the number of hours at a later stage but and can I say to um all parties we will do the same um as I think most trials do now and that is you'll just be given an overall figure as opposed to timing for every witness.

[00:22:55]Um but um there is one thing um what emerged as a problem in the last trial of al-Rahan was the fact that witnesses to the same incident were called months apart. Um as a result of which um discrepancies and things which could have been resolved had it had they been spotted were not spotted.

[00:23:23]Um and uh if we say as I think we'll have to given what the registry says that we're going to start the trial earlier but they won't have their interpreters ready until the new year and you deal with them in English. Uh you deal with those who can give evidence in English rather.

[00:23:45]Um, what I would still what we would all still like is for you to try and call all the witnesses to the same incident consecutively.

[00:23:58]Um, it makes life very difficult afterwards. Is that is that something that that will Well, I don't expect you to answer that straight away, but I think it's something you you we'd like you to consider.

[00:24:10]>> Well, of Thank you, your honor. Yeah, of course we would want to do that. Um, without rehashing the last trial, it was the interpretation that threw that off because we had to just choose whoever could speak the standard Arabic at the time or in English.

[00:24:24]>> Um, I think it will be less of an issue in this case because the case is different in that it's not sort of three big incidents with many witnesses for each of those.

[00:24:35]>> It's a lot of incident.

[00:24:36]>> It's a lot of little incidents which are fairly discreet which rely on fewer incident fewer witnesses per incident.

[00:24:43]So, uh, we will try to do that. If I could just go back to the, um, translation, not not to, uh, complain, but we we did raise this early in order to try to get a head start. Um, we sent a notice on 13 March, I believe, of the languages. Um my my understanding is that that nothing can happen until after confir the confirmation decision, but I just wonder if it can be speeded up because uh 6 months is a long time, not just for the courtroom presentation, but but some of the feedback uh that we received that that my friends representing victims would know better is that um as as as Mr. Dubisan said uh there's a lot of interest in this case in the Philippines and having it not broadcast I know that's not the main point and we don't always do that but it'd be much much better uh for the population and the victims and people interested in this case if it could be broadcast in Tagalog or the other languages. though if we start with all English speaking witnesses that will require us to jump around a bit although we will try to keep it as coherent and and focused as possible on the particular incidents. Um but it but it means at the start of the trial that some people won't be able to follow um as well as they should and uh that would be a shame. um that that would be I think part of what we try to do here is make this accessible to the uh population in for the situation in question. So if there's any way to speed that up that would be be excellent.

[00:26:24]>> Yes. Well, as I said to Mr. Don, my understanding is that the the um the court system in the Philippines operates in English and if there is real interpret I I may say I was quite surprised. I I rather was under the impression and have been told by people who come from the Philippines that that most people that did speak English, but I'm told that's what you all tell me that's wrong. But certainly the court system must therefore have um ready in trained simultaneous interpreters.

[00:26:55]>> Uh yes, your honor. I I have to say it was um not something we had foreseen um until we heard after the confirmation hearing and and got this feedback. Um, but it's also likely that um, some of the population from which a lot of the victims in this case were drawn do not speak English. It may be that most people do, but I I again defer to my friends, but that the that some of the poor community where many of the victims are from uh, do not do not have a good command.

[00:27:29]>> Yes. All right. Um there's one other thing I mean it will be um specified in the conduct of proceedings but um I note that a lot of these um the witness evidence is in the form of um suspect interviews right um can I make it clear straight away as I say it'll appear in the conduct proceedings where there are lengthy interviews which wander all over the place in terms of topics and whatever.

[00:28:09]Um before the witness is called, the chamber will expect to have a breakdown in schedule form of the topics which are to be gone through the witness in the order of which they are to be gone through.

[00:28:25]um with a reference in a column to the pages in the actual interview because as I say our experience certainly my experience from the last trial was that um as so often happens in such interviews topics were returned to over and over again. So can I make that clear right away?

[00:28:51]>> Absolutely your honor we expected that.

[00:28:54]Um, we've discussed how to do that best and we plan to do that. Um, I would say that affects um in in the most part five witnesses especially. Um and so we uh intend to provide very detailed summaries and and we'll put them in the format that the court um we will create those schedules and we will also take care of the summaries for those insiders with lengthy transcripts.

[00:29:28]>> Right. Um and and the other the last thing is and and I think that's a general comment.

[00:29:35]Um it it really is incumbent as I say in particular because of this case because of the health um of um the accused that we we the evidence is kept to the minimum possible. Um and the chamber would not expect to hear from witnesses all saying the same thing. And um I know Mr. Ames objects to it and I'll come back to that but we'd expect as much use of of of um uh rule 683 and um 682 B I think it is um as possible.

[00:30:17]>> Yes, we would plan that. Uh that that is something I was going to address. We we would like to I mean the experience of the last trials has seemed to work well.

[00:30:26]Um I think the juristp prudence I won't go into it now to check is >> so there is no unfairness whatsoever in using 683 there's it's available to both parties. It makes things more efficient in every way. Uh and and we intend to use it in terms of um the length and and how much the witnesses need to testify. I think that that may be something where we can cut that down. Some of these facts may not be in dispute about a particular murder.

[00:30:56]Um that that may we may be able to narrow it to the uh issues in dispute which would make the testimony much shorter if the actual fact of this murder or this incident is is not in dispute and we're talking about linkage etc. So we we may be able to speed it up.

[00:31:13]>> Yes. Well, I'll come back to that when we come to your um documentary. Uh yes.

[00:31:18]Right. Um Mr. Haynes or Miss Gibson?

[00:31:22]Nothing to add about that.

[00:31:23]>> Right. Uh, Miss Mazina, anything?

[00:31:28]>> No, Madame President. Thank you.

[00:31:29]>> All right. Right. Next then the next topic is um Oh, well, I suppose I may as well deal with it here. Yeah. Um, sorry before I move on, Mr. Nicholson, I meant to say the defense did say you should provide at the earliest possible time a provisional provisional witness list. Uh can I say I agree with that?

[00:31:55]>> We we agree too.

[00:31:56]>> Yeah. Right.

[00:31:56]>> We'll do that 5 months in advance. The provisional witness list. It's already the list from confirmation obviously.

[00:32:01]>> Yeah.

[00:32:02]>> But we will provide an updated one um five months in advance which I think is what was requested.

[00:32:08]>> Right. Thank you.

[00:32:11]Um okay. uh expert witnesses. Um you seem to be sorry Mr. N you again then. Um you seem to be calling an awful lot.

[00:32:24]Um uh on the face of it um I think all we want to say at this stage about it um is this that um we're going to propose I think um that there is a deadline of the 24th of August to provide a a list of your experts um and their reports if possible. Um it would be helpful if again as in the Alraman trial um defense and prosecution could agree on on on the nature and and yeah well I see MS want to say something in a moment um at the moment it seems to me it's the defense and prosecution that um could agree on the nature of the experts to be called.

[00:33:18]Um but um I will say this um firstly if if the these are going to be experts that are not on the registry list um you should inform the registry um as as soon as possible who you want to because more checks are being done these days on on on expert witnesses.

[00:33:43]Um so it's really important that the registry is given advanced notice.

[00:33:48]Um second uh if objection is going to be taken by and this applies to experts called on by both sides to um either the expert uh and the the expertise of the particular expert or the content of the report. Again, that must be um notified to the trial chamber well in advance um of the expert to be called um and if there's going to be any legal argument about it um particularly involving a void then that must be um notified as early as possible and I say that applies to both sides. Um, Mr. Haynes, anything you want to say about that at the moment?

[00:34:43]>> Um, just a couple of things and and and I do hope Mr. Nichols will forgive me if we are holding a conversation across the courtroom. It it it's merely the fact that we haven't had the opportunity to have a lengthy conversation as he's already alluded to. I just wondered whether the prosecution experts have yet been instructed how far advanced their reports are and whether he's confident they could be served by the 30th of September of this year.

[00:35:10]>> Oh, well, we had in line uh earlier than that actually.

[00:35:14]>> I I'm I'm grateful for that, but the note I made was the 30th of September.

[00:35:18]>> I thought I said the 24th of August.

[00:35:20]>> 24th of August. Yes, >> I did. Mr. Nichols.

[00:35:26]>> Yes. Um we have instructed some of the experts they are underway on their reports. Um I think we will we will definitely be able to meet the 24th for the list which um will likely be narrower than what we're looking at here. Part of it depends on some things in the works. Um, as far as the provision of the reports, I that it's hard for me to say that may be difficult for for some of them, the 24th of August. Um, but uh we will um >> well, I think >> follow follow your orders. I as I could say, we're it it's moving. We have instructed the experts they are working. I need to I need to check essentially um and I I think we could meet that very likely for uh the most kind of important reports but there may be a couple there's a couple things where we're waiting on outside parties. Um and uh I I leave it there I think.

[00:36:42]>> Yeah. All right. Uh yes midi you wanted to say something. Uh >> yes your honor actually was the same question that uh my colleague posed to the prosecution about if the expert were already instructed or not for one very simple reason. Some of the expert are also interesting for us. So we were thinking of a joint instructions um to save time of court maybe we will with a prosecution and see what what what can be done yet. Thank you so much.

[00:37:12]Yeah. Um All right. And I'll say one other thing about experts at this stage.

[00:37:17]Again, it will be it will appear in the conduct of proceedings. But um that is this. If um the uh side who's not calling the expert intends uh to show documents during the course of a cross- examination to an expert, they must be provided to the expert in advance of the hearing. Um as I say that will appear in the conduct of proceedings.

[00:37:49]Um right. Um uh the next item is anybody want to say anything else on that? Um does the reg Mr. Dubis want to say anything about experts other than obviously notification?

[00:38:04]>> Mr. Dubris as you indicated and rightly so. We currently have a vetting system which is much more advanced to circumvent any problems. So it would be worthwhile to be informed of experts ahead of time so that through through these three ways of vetting an individual we can get from A to B. Thank you.

[00:38:27]>> Yes. Next. Uh the use of um AVL um um the answer I mean I don't think I need to say anything else about Mr. Hayes. Um, you say it should remain limited and subject to prior judicial authorization. What did you do during COVID?

[00:38:50]>> Stayed at home.

[00:38:51]>> Yes. And did everything on AVL?

[00:38:54]>> Yeah. Um, I I I mean I do have one I I hope helpful observation and and that is of course the big difficult big difficulty with AVL in this case is is the time difference.

[00:39:06]>> Yes. Yes. Um, ever since uh the 15th of May, my phone pings regularly from 4:00 in the morning onwards and you can't get anybody after 4:00 in the afternoon. Um, and I think it's going to apply both to those who appear on a video screen and those who are brought here who are going to need, I think, a couple of days of climatization to the new time zone they're in. So I think that that is going to be a practical problem with AVL um in in terms of hearing people who are on the other side of the world. Um please don't pay too much attention uh to what appears in the submission document. You will notice its proximity to the date of my assignment.

[00:39:48]>> Yes. Um, can I say um that uh I agree with I mean that is I was going to raise that anyhow, Mr. Nichols. It's going to be really difficult if if they are um testifying from the Philippines because we'll be sitting at something like 6:00 in the morning, won't we?

[00:40:07]>> We'll have to work that out, your honor.

[00:40:09]Um in uh my last job before here, there were sometimes video links that where I was president and it started late at night in the other uh jurisdiction. Um we will we're cognizant of that and uh we will only apply for video link when it's impossible to get the person here.

[00:40:31]Um so it it will be as limited as we can make it because we would rather they be here. there there may be some witnesses who just can't for reasons.

[00:40:40]>> Yeah. All right. Well, I I as I say, I don't think there's anything else that needs to be said about that. Um it you don't need judicial authorization. Um you can subject to um the timings. Um you can just to make that arrangement.

[00:40:59]Um other documentary evidence is the next item.

[00:41:05]Yes. Um now um let me just go through that. Um the uh you say you're currently the OTP is currently in the process of determining the overall um yes you've got 619 items on a minute paragraph Oh yes, it's um yeah, it's the speeches.

[00:41:46]That's right. Query with you.

[00:41:51]um 197 speeches seems to me on the face of it and uh uh without um it's probably not the right word but it seems to me too much particularly if they all say the same thing. Um, and I think you need to consider fairly carefully whether you need all 197.

[00:42:20]>> We're definitely not going to intend to play all those in court. We will go through them. These are the these that will be narrowed. That was, I believe, meant and Mr. Jeremy may need to help me here in a minute, but that was meant that's sort of the universe at the moment. and they're sort of um we will make careful selections. We we don't intend to to introduce I'm sure all 197 of those. Right. Um now the point which is made in the defense submissions um is um this question uh of whether documents need to be um submitted uh need to be go onto the court record through the submission or admission system.

[00:43:24]Um I'll I'll I'll let Mr. Hes um address us on this, but it the submission system of evidence getting onto the record is now um courtwide. I think all trial chambers accept that's the way of doing it.

[00:43:47]However, as an as a result of the experiences in our last trial where there was a whole lot of in our view unnecessary and irrelevant evidence that was dumped into the court record through largely um the admission of um uh large very large documents.

[00:44:18]even though a witness had only spoken as to one page or even worse through the bar table motion. Um this chamber is going to um try and find um a fine line between the two systems um uh which um uh we haven't quite worked out and but will appear in the conduct of proceedings.

[00:44:48]But one of the the the things that um we have in mind is that where documents are relied upon heavily by either party to the proceedings um and considered to be important and I take into account the argument mounted um on behalf of Mr. Hannes, which has been said on many occasions, um that it makes it very difficult to know at the end whether the chamber will find the document to be persuasive or unpersuasive or even admitted at all.

[00:45:36]And so I think we are going to say um just so that you have advanced warning that where a particular document is said to be um important we are going to um say that we will decide on admission or not at that stage when it's presented.

[00:45:56]But as I say, what I'm anxious to avoid is wholesale, as I say, dumping of um documents through the bar table motion.

[00:46:05]Um videos of visits to the country did not seem to help the chamber much in its last case.

[00:46:16]Um so that's really all um that I want to say at this stage, unless there's anything else. Oh yes. Um I'm sorry.

[00:46:25]There is one other thing.

[00:46:27]Um uh uh if if you're going to want to introduce uh um evidence from open sources, which includes Facebook or any other social media platforms, um then um we want to know if you're just going to put them in or whether you're going to be calling expert evidence.

[00:46:56]um in in I when I say open source I mean other I mean material that is not directly attributable to a witness or anybody who can speak about it.

[00:47:10]>> Okay, that's understood. We'll we'll look at that.

[00:47:12]>> Yeah, >> thank you.

[00:47:14]>> Yes, Mr. Haynes, anything you want to say?

[00:47:16]>> Uh no, thank you your honor. Right.

[00:47:18]>> Um Miss Mars, anything you want to say?

[00:47:23]No, thank you.

[00:47:24]>> All right. Um I take it the registry has no observations on this. Uh all right.

[00:47:31]Um well, rule 68 we've more or less dealt with. Um I think um I think we'll leave it to the parties to see what agreement can be reached on on on 68. Um, as I say, and as Mr. Nichols says, um, uh, it's quite a 683 is quite a a good way of of getting the evidence in. Um, um, and yes, and we encourage the parties to discuss that really.

[00:48:17]Oh, well, I suppose um the only thing, Mr. Nichols, are you are you would you be using rule 683 for any of the article 55 witnesses or trying to?

[00:48:32]>> Yes, that's possible.

[00:48:35]I think so.

[00:48:39]>> Yeah. All right. Well, I think we'll see where we we get to that. maintains. I don't expect any submissions on that at the moment.

[00:48:48]Um, agreed facts.

[00:48:51]Next, um, happy to see that everybody is, um, going to talk about this still.

[00:49:00]Um, and, um, the only I mean, we encourage, as I've already said, we really encourage agreed facts.

[00:49:12]must be quite a lot in this case because it's a matter of public record uh what um the accused um said um or did um or in some stages in some senses. Um the only question um I I see that um Miss Mida the um you submit that um the uh legal representative victim should have a say on this.

[00:49:44]Um the the the article actually talks about um prosecution and defense.

[00:49:52]Um I I think if you want to obviously you should be supplied with potential agreed facts. Um but I think if you want to address us um or or if you want to make submissions on it, you'll have to apply for leave.

[00:50:10]>> Uh thank you madame president. I am guided if I have can I have one minutes on this issue?

[00:50:16]>> Yes.

[00:50:17]>> Thank you very much. Um first of all two things very briefly. One, it has been court practice to allow victims to notify the chamber if they have or they have not any matter to raise in relation to agreed facts raised by the chamber.

[00:50:35]And second, in deciding the chamber shall take into account also the interest of the victims. So on that basis we submitted already that we should at least give an opportunity to have a say on whether or not the agreed facts agreed by the parties may raise an issue for the victims remains of course entirely with the parties to discuss. We don't want to be involved in that. But we simply request the notification of agreed facts just to check whether or not this may have an impact on the interest of the victims and eventually raise that with the chamber. And it's something that can be done in a very uh quick way if I can also make this point if we are notified of the agreed facts it will take for us not more than a few days to verify whether or not the interests of our clients are indeed concerned. Thank you.

[00:51:30]>> Well, you say that's been the practice.

[00:51:33]I mean, you quote what I you you don't actually say which case it was, but I am assuming from the date that it was Lubanganger in your footnote 12 um at paragraph 10. Um but what you rightly say was that rule 69 which deals with that apart from saying it's the prosecution and the defense >> it's for the chamber to decide whether uh the chamber may consider such an alleged fact as being proven unless the chamber is of the opinion that a more complete presentation is required in the interest of justice. in particular interests of the victims. So before we even get to that, we have to decide whether it's it it if work satisfied that um something is proven uh then it's for us to decide before um and it's only if we take the view that we need more information or more complete presentation um that that the victims come into it.

[00:52:46]Well, your honor, with all due respect, sometimes the chamber may not be aware of facts or circumstances that the legal representative are aware of because we maintain the direct contact with the victims. So in this sense for us the notification is important because we can confront what the parties have agreed with what the views and concerns of the victims are. And second going back to the um practice of the court uh in the Abdalaman case uh we notified twice our agreement uh in the pre at the pre-trial stage um can remember now the filing I'm looking behind me someone can find that uh at pre-trial in the Abdul Arman there were already a list of agreed facts and if my memory is still good I hope so uh in both cases there is the filing of the legal the then appointed legal representative notificate um notifying the chamber about no position of the agreed facts reached by the parties so it's not an ancient practice of the court it's a practice has been prolonged in a number of cases before the court I leave it to the discussion of the chamber but I wanted to make the point because particularly in this case it's important for victims to be fully appraised of what's going on. Victims are very interested in this case and for them it has an impact if a fact is already agreed or not agreed. Thank you.

[00:54:26]>> Yes. Well, we we'll take that um your submissions under consideration. Um yes, thank you. Unless there's anything else on that um before uh Yes, Mr. Nichols.

[00:54:36]Just I think in in in the last trial I I think agree with your honor that the defense and I agree what and and the prosecution agree what they can and then the LRV is notified that this agreement has taken place and we submit them. But I think that's where that's where it ends. Um >> well that's my my impression but um I hear what Miss Mida said. Um I I just think it would be unfortunate um where there to be intervention um when um facts which have been agreed uh between the defense and prosecution who are the parties to this trial. Um and with the lordable view of increasing the efficiency um I I I would be reluctant to see it being derailed at any stage.

[00:55:31]But as I say, we'll return to you on that, Miss Msa. Um, all right. Finally, before we take the break, um, languages.

[00:55:39]I think we've really discussed that, hadn't we? Except the only thing that, um, Mr. I was slightly surprised to see was that um you wanted um interpretation for your lay client uh who as I understand it as president of the Philipp ex-president of the Philippines an ex lawyer in the Philippines speaks fluent English um he won't need interpretation right thank Um yes uh unless there's anything else on interpretation I think we've actually discussed that um uh already anybody else want to add anything.

[00:56:31]All right. Well, it seems to me um because we're then coming on to disclosure um which will be slightly longer, I think. Um uh we'll take the break at the stage and sit again at 11:00.

[00:56:49]All right. We will