TRANSCRIPT (Day 2): ICC Principal Counsel for Victims Paolina Massidda

Paolina Massidda, one of the common legal representatives (CLRVs) of the drug war victims’ kin, gives the second part of the submissions on the merits of the case of former President Rodrigo Duterte at the International Criminal Court on Day 2 of the confirmation of charges hearing. Below is the transcript:

CLRV’s submission on the merits

We speak today on behalf of a thousand of victims and surviving families who have suffered immeasurable harm under the so-called anti-drug campaign conducted during the administration of the suspect, former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte. We speak for families who cannot be here. Mothers who buried their sons, children who lost their parents, the spouses who now raise families alone, and communities that have lived for years under fear and silence and that continue to bear the consequence of violence that swept through their neighbors like a storm.

These victims appear today before you not as mere statistics or distant figures or images in reports as pictured yesterday by the defense but as human beings whose rights under the Rome Statute have been violated in the most profound ways. These proceedings relate to what has been labelled the Duterte’s war on drugs and Duterte’s bloody war on drugs. However, the campaign, as I will refer to it during my presentation, was less about combating the drug trade itself and more about policing poverty and social inequality.

As the evidence of the record unequivocally shows, individuals targeted by Mr. Duterte’s anti-drug operations overwhelmingly came from impoverished communities where social mobility is limited and opportunities are scarce. Drug use, particularly methamphetamine, locally known as shabu, is often more prevalent in such low-incoming settings where people may turn to substances as a coping mechanism for their harsh living conditions.

In these communities, structural conditions, including the absence of adequate mental health services, limited access to quality education, scarce employment opportunities and the chronic stress associated with poverty, create an environment in which substance use is more likely to emerge.

Therefore, patterns of drug use do not arise in a vacuum. They reflect deeper systemic inequalities and long-standing patterns of socio-economic marginalization. The campaign disproportionately affected the poor and marginalized, especially in urban informal settlements marked by high levels of poverty.

While the rhetoric of war focused on eradicating drug dealers and users, it was the most vulnerable members of society, those with the least power and resources, were caught in the crossfire. A significant number of the ones killed had little or no criminal history and were often accused of minor drug-related conduct or perceived drug use by the authorities. These were people living in poverty, were treated as expendable by a system that failed to prioritize their protection and to address the structural conditions underlying their struggles.

Rather than addressing the root causes of drug addiction, such as poverty, lack of education, unemployment and inequality, the Duterte administration framed the issue as a criminal one, focusing on punitive enforcement over social responses. Mr. Duterte’s response was a selective, violent crackdown of the most vulnerable, recasting conditions of marginalization as grounds for criminal targeting, rather than as manifestations of social injustice.

Framed on its face as a campaign against illegal drugs, it in reality reflected broader social-political dynamics, including the targeting of marginalized communities, the use of state violence, and the deflection of attention from deeper structural problems.

Mr. Duterte is charged under Article 7.1.A of the Rome Statute with the crimes against humanity of murder and attempted murder allegedly committed between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019 in or around Davao City during the period in which he was mayor of a town and across the Republic of the Philippines during his term as president of a country.

The prosecution presented ample evidence showing that each of the contextual elements of crimes against humanity is satisfied at the required threshold for confirming the charges. During the period covered by the charges, the Davao Death Squad and the national network created by Mr. Duterte to commit the crimes carried out an attack against the civilian population within the meaning of Article 7.2.A of the statute as reflected in a course of conduct involved with the Commission of Multicultural Murders and Attempted Murders.

The victims’ accounts of the events corroborate the prosecution’s evidence and show that the crimes they suffered were not spontaneous or isolated acts of violence, but rather a planned, directed and organized attack against them. The attack was massive, carried out collectively with considerable seriousness and directed against a multiplicity of civilians. The victims were all civilians.

The repeated lethal operations were conducted in residential and other civilian settings. As already indicated, the victims largely came from marginalized communities, were suspected by the authorities of involvement in criminal, often drug-related activities, and together with their families, they were targeted in their homes and neighborhoods. The attack was widespread and systematic, and we refer your Honour to Annex D and E of the Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief.

The attack was widespread because of its large-scale nature and the number of victims. In this regard, the number of victims affected by the events within the charges is one of the most relevant factors to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining, under the chapeau of Article 7.1 of the Statute, whether the attack was widespread or systematic. The broad geographical spread of the victimization, combined with the significant number of victims, confirm the wide scope of the attack.

As the prosecution has made clear yesterday and today, the instances of murders and attempted murders in the document containing the charges and in the pre-trial brief are simply illustrative of a much broader pattern of victimization.

In fact, the actual scale of victimization extends well beyond the 49 incidents affecting 78 victims presented by the prosecution. The prosecution itself referred to thousands of civilians murdered, and we recall here the content of Paragraph 73 of the Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief, as well as the remarks by Ms. Croft just 15-20 minutes ago.

As reported by Human Rights Watch in a report published on 2022, since 2016, the Philippine police have admitted its involvement in the death of more than 6,200 people in drug raids across the country. In a 2020 report, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported 8,663 deaths occurred in the drug war. The Human Rights Commission of the Philippines and Domestic Human Rights Group report death tolls that are two to three times higher than the UN figure.

The attack was also systematic, well-planned and well-executed following a standard modus operandi. In many cases, it began with an individual receiving a visit or a phone call from an official from the local barangay, informing them that they were on a drug watch list drawn up by barangay officials and the police. In practice, these visits function less as warnings than as a means of confirming the identity and whereabouts of the intended target.

As one victim reported, I quote, “A barangay official told my husband to surrender to the police because he was on the watch list as a drug user. He had given up drug use months earlier. Two weeks later, three armed masked men wearing bulletproof vests arrived at our home in Manila and cuffed him. I could hear my husband begging for his life from outside the room. We were crying and the other armed men threatened to kill us as well. Moments later, my husband was shot dead,” end of quote.

Survivors, relatives and neighbors consistently recount that armed men typically work in groups of two, four or a dozen. They wore either police uniforms or civilian clothes, often all black, with their faces concealed by balaclava-style headgears, masks, baseball caps or helmets.

They carried handguns. As one victim explained, and I quote, “On 6 June 2017, at about 9:45 in the evening, I was at home with my husband and our children were sleeping upstairs. Four unidentified men wearing helmets and bonnets arrived at home looking for my husband. They broke down the front door. I started begging them to spare the life of my husband. The men pushed me away. My husband was shot in the chest and fell face down. While lying face down, he was shot five more times in the nape and head. The children woke up terrified because of the gunshots,” end of quote.

Attackers frequently traveled by motorcycle, typically with two individuals on a single bike, often a van, invariably white or black, and at times bearing markings associated with police vehicles was also present. They banged on doors and barged into rooms.

The attackers did not identify themselves or provide warrants. Family members report hearing beatings and their loved ones begging for their lives. And I quote again from the recollection of one of the victims: “Five masked armed men broke into our house in Bulacan province where my father was playing cards. We could see him kneeling in a surrendering position. The men grabbed him and slammed him into a concrete wall several times. And then just they throw him outside. We saw the shooting. We were just there. My father’s face was bleeding from being hit and he was begging them for mercy when he was shot,” end of quote.

And other victims explain, quote, “My father collapsed to the floor but still tried to move, begging for his life. Yet the men continued shooting him. I couldn’t count how many times. I was so afraid. We also heard successive gunshots from outside. Later we found that also two of our neighbors were killed,” end of quote.

The shooting could happen immediately, behind closed doors or in the street. All the victims would be taken away by the gunmen, only for shots to be heard minutes later, and the body to be discovered by local residents.

At times bodies were dumped elsewhere, sometimes with hands tied or heads wrapped in plastic. Relatives typically found them after being alerted by policemen or by the neighbors.

A victim recalls, quote, “Six masked armed men broke into the house where a small group including several teenagers were watching television. The men arrested and beat two young boys they believed were drug suspects and then took them away on motorcycles. A half hour later, after hearing from a uniformed policeman, we, referring to the relatives, rushed to a nearby bridge to find their bodies, both with gunshot wounds to the head, their hands tied with cloth. The gunmen were still at the scene, while uniformed police cordoned off the area.”

Another victim recounted, quote. “A week after his brother was killed, ten police officers, some in civilian clothes, arrested my other son and took him to the local barangay office. That evening, masked armed men abducted him from the barangay office. Shortly afterwards, his body was found under a bridge a block away. When we found him, we saw that his entire head had been wrapped in packing tape, and his hands had been tied behind his back. He had been shot, execution style, through the mouth,” end of quote.

And another one, quote, “The body seemed like it was just thrown out. The nails were removed, one eyeball was missing, stuffed by cotton,” end of quote.

Relatives and witnesses often saw uniformed police in the immediate surroundings of the incident, securing the perimeter. Special crime scene investigators typically arrived within minutes. In numerous cases, an unregistered .38 or .45 caliber gun and a packet of shabu were found placed beside the body.

And instead of fleeing from the police, the gunmen would mingle with them. As one of the victims described, I quote, “On 7 June 2018, in the morning, I was at home when I saw my son coming back from his work on the opposite side of the street. Suddenly, I saw eight policemen, three in uniform and three in civilian clothes. Two of them crossed the street. They took my son and banged his head against the wall. They accused him of selling shabu. He denied. He was then taken to the door of the house. He was shouting, ‘Mama, help me!’ I took a piece of wood and hit one policeman. Suddenly, one policeman pointed the gun against my son. He shot twice, at the head and at the chest. While in shock, I saw one police officer placing four packets of shabu and the gun around the body of my son,” end of quote.

The same account of another victim who simply recalled, “After the shooting of my son, who was only 19, uniformed police showed me his body in the house and a .45 caliber handgun next to his body. I told them that my son could not afford and did not possess a gun and therefore could not possibly have attempted to shoot at the police. I said, he cannot even pay the rent. His sister paid the rent for him,” end of quote.

On occasions, victims were still alive when found by the relatives and taken to the hospital, where they later succumbed to their injuries. Survivors recount the terror and enduring feeling of still being hunted, as follows, and I quote, “In September 2016, a police officer pretending to be a commuter boarded my tricycle. He asked me to pass by the police station. There, I was stopped by a group of men who turned to be police officers. I was taken to the precinct, beaten and forced to reveal the identity of drug pushers. I didn’t know. Later that evening, I was taken to a dark place and shot multiple times. Despite the injuries, I managed to escape and save my life. I still have the consequence of the injuries and I feel deep sadness, anger and fear of being caught again,” end of quote.

Another survivor explained, quote, “They killed my four friends, kneeling and defenseless. I heard a barrage of gunshots, voices and one officer saying, Let it be. Let’s say they fought back and let’s leave the evidence. I lay next to one of my friends pretending to be dead. When the armed officer left, I crawled out of the room and headed towards the edge of the ravine. Holding my chest with one hand to stop the bleeding, I slid downwards and fell to the creek bed. I crossed it, climbed the hill on the other side and walked toward the highway. There, I encountered someone I knew and desperately begged for help,” end of quote.

After the charges concerned only the crimes of murder and attempted murder, victims’ accounts also revealed widespread acts of torture, ill-treatment and rape. Young people were particularly exposed to torture and cruel human treatments, including unlawful arrest. A number of victims participating in these proceedings were minor when they were attempted to be killed.

And a number of victims participating in the proceedings recount the killing of their nephew, son, cousin, who was under 18 at the age of killing. And this morning, Mr. Jeremy, provided the example of Kian Delos Santos, who was 17 at the time of his killing. Reported forms of torture include beating, kicking, slapping, blows to the head, electrocution and death threats.

On several occasions, law enforcement officials used arrests, inclusion in the drug watch list and drug-related accusations as a tool of coercion to perpetrate rape and other forms of sexual violence. In September 2018, a young boy was taken by the police and brought to the precinct.

His mother recounted, I quote, “At the precinct, he was repeatedly coerced into confessing a crime he was accused of. If you don’t admit, your life will be the price. They threatened him. When he refused to confess, he was beaten with a gun and electrocuted. On the night of 16 September 2018, between 9 and 10, I received a phone call from my cousin urging me to go in a certain location in Manila. What I saw was a nightmare. My son had been discarded like an animal. His lifeless body lying on the boulevard, abandoned like a fish by the roadside. I rushed to the scene, but I was blocked by the police. I was not even allowed to touch or embrace my son’s body. Even in death, my son was not treated with dignity. It was like they just threw my son out like a pig. I finally found him at the funeral home where I had to pay to recover the body. I had nothing. I was bargaining as if I were buying fish. In the end, I paid approximately 45,000 pesos to take my son’s body for burial. Now, I wonder, will justice ever be served?”

Official police reports of these incidents invariably invoke self-defense to justify the killings, despite eyewitness accounts that portray the killings as cold-blooded murders of unarmed individuals. To bolster their claims, the police routinely planted guns, spent ammunition and drug packets beside the bodies.

While these official accounts contrasted markedly with the ones provided by the relatives, they were notably consistent among themselves, typically characterizing the incidents as bypassed anti-drug operations, differing little besides the names, places and dates.

The victim was invariably described as a dealer who attempted to sell to undercover officers conducting a bypassed operation. Specialized local anti-drug units, called Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operations Task Units, were usually involved.

According to the reports, the victim, after being put under arrest, often cuffed, allegedly pulled out a weapon and sought to shoot the police. In every case, the victim was killed and none of the arresting officers were armed. In most cases, the police reported having found shabu on or near the victim’s corpse and sometimes a gun.

Often, after the killing, the bodies of the victims were brought directly to the funeral parlors. Families then had to start their calvary to find the body of their loved ones and they had to pay high fees to retrieve the bodies. R-50082-25 had to sell the house to be able to pay for her brother’s funeral and burial. Sometimes the bodies were instead left on the street or thrown into the water in a plastic bag.

Similar post-police, post-incident police reports, with consistent narrative of armed resistance, “nanlaban,” planting of drugs and weapons, and the absence of genuine investigation, demonstrates a systematic attack. This pattern is not a coincidence, it is structured. The use of similar operational narrative and particular assertions of armed resistance demonstrate consistency incompatible with isolated acts.

Regardless of whether the direct perpetrators were formally identified as police officers, the similar tactics used show planning and coordination involving law enforcement authorities and, at times, local officials. Killings were not carried out by rogue officers or by vigilantes, operating separately from the authorities. The police involvement in the killings extended well beyond the cases officially acknowledged as death arising from bypassed operations.

Furthermore, the government failed to arrest, let alone prosecute, a single police officer for the role in any of the war on drug killings that Duterte has encouraged, sent a clear message that the one responsible need not fear accountability and can act with impunity. There is no evidence that Mr. Duterte took any steps to prevent or punish the responsible for the murders. On the contrary, as his numerous public statements made clear, he discounted the legality of police actions, showing no inclination or intent to investigate alleged crimes.

Mr. Duterte encouraged the police to carry out his anti-drug campaign and repeatedly stated he would protect them from prosecution. On 19 July 2016, at a fellowship dinner with his former law school classmates, Mr. Duterte said the police officer could carry out the war on drugs without worrying about being prosecuted.

He stated, and I quote, “The President can grant pardon, conditional or absolute, or grant amnesty with the concurrence of Congress. I will use it, believe me,” end of quote.

During a press conference on 21 August 2016, he also explained that his promises to protect the police was one of the reasons why the war on drugs had become so bloody, and I quote, “Remember, I went in warning everyone. I said it could be bloody because I knew that the police would now be equipped with a certain mindset, that they would be protected by law if they go in and have this, you know, violent confrontation. Because before, they were afraid of these human rights and a lot of them lost their jobs because they couldn’t even have a lawyer to defend themselves,” end of quote.

Mr. Duterte also warned human rights organizations not to file cases against police and army officers for extrajudicial killings, saying, and I quote, “I would like to say now they will never go to prison, not under my watch,” end of quote.

This morning, Your Honor, Mr. Jeremy referred to the killing of the mayor of Albuera, Rolando Espinosa, who was killed inside the Leyte prison.

At the time, the National Bureau of Investigation determined that the killings were a rub-out of two unarmed prisoners inside their cell and filled murder charges. Mr. Duterte responded, saying that the officers would not be prosecuted with these words, and I will quote, “I will not allow these, meaning officers, go to prison. I don’t care if the NPA says it is murder. Anyway, the NPA and the Department of Justice are both under my authority. I will be the one to answer for it and go to prison,” end of quote.

On his third day in office as president, Mr. Duterte publicly told police officers that he would pardon them if they kill drug dealers and drug addicts, using these words, quote, “Do your duty, and if in the process you kill 1,000 people because you are doing your duty, I will protect you,” end of quote.

Given the prevailing perception of police impunity and the absence of effective investigations or prosecutions, in many cases, victims did not file a complaint, nor try to initiate criminal proceedings.

As one family member of a victim explained to us, and by quote, “We had no hope for an investigation of the police. One of us saw one of the police go inside with an aluminum briefcase. He took out a gun and some shabby socket and placed them next to the body. I went back to where I was, and I was totally shocked. I couldn’t even complain. If we go complain, what is our chance against the authorities?” end of quote.

In other cases, victims tried to seek justice. They went to the police, to local officials, to government agencies. They filed reports, they asked for investigation, they begged for answers, but their pleas were ignored, their complaints were dismissed, their testimonies were doubted.

In some cases, the very people they approached for help were the same ones involved in the violence. They were left with no path forward. No institution was willing to hear them, no authority was willing to protect them, no system was willing to acknowledge what was happening.

The attack against the civilian population was carried out pursuant to a state policy to neutralize, through violent crimes, including murder, individuals perceived or alleged to be involved in drug-related and other crimes. The policy was originally developed by Mr. Duterte and his close associates in Davao City and implemented locally, and then expanded to the national level in 2016 once Mr. Duterte became president of the Republic of the Philippines.

Victims support the primary prosecution pleading and submit that the evidence shows the existence of such a policy as reflected in the repeated patterns of conduct, the mobilization of state resources, Mr. Duterte’s public endorsement and institutional tolerance.

Mr. Duterte first ran for mayor of Davao in 1988 on a campaign to restore law and order in the city, the largest of the main southern islands of Mindanao. At that time, Davao was known as the murder capital of the Philippines. Communist insurgents and government security forces gunned each other down and many civilians day and night on Davao’s streets and barrios.

Mr. Duterte was Davao mayor for most of the years between 1988 and 2016. Local NGOs indicate that squad killings of alleged drug dealers, petty criminals and street children in Davao City started sometimes in the mid-90s, during Mr. Duterte’s second term. The group that claimed to be responsible for the killings was called Servants of the People, amongst other names.

But soon the media, as you have also heard in these days, the media began referring to it as the Davao Death Squad. The Davao Death Squad killed hundreds. Mr. Duterte endorsed the killings as an effective way to combat crime, relishing his Duterte-like nickname and reputation.

His active promotion of the killings of suspected drug offenders led to a sharp increase in such killings during his time as mayor. According to one estimate amongst the others that have been shown yesterday and today, at least 1,424 such killings took place in Davao between 1988 and 2015. As you heard yesterday during the presentation of Mr. Nicholls and today during the presentation of Ms. Croft, when confronted with a death toll during his presidential election campaign, Mr. Duterte responded: “They said I killed 700? (10:18) They undercounted. It was 1,700.”

As you also heard, Your Honors, on numerous occasions as mayor, Mr. Duterte claimed personal responsibility or the police of killing drug suspects. Even prior to announcing his candidacy for the May 2016 presidential election, Mr. Duterte was already very clear about his intention to eliminate crime by eliminating criminals, applying nationwide the abusive crime control tactics.

As reported in the Sunstar Philippines on 24 May 2015, he declared, and I quote, “If by chance that God will place me there, watch out, because the 1,000 (referring to the person killed in Davao) because the 1,000 will become 100,000, you will see the fish in Manila Bay getting fat. That is where I will dump you,” end of quote.

Three months after that speech, he renewed his pledge, and I quote, “If I become president, you better hide. That 1,000 will reach 50,000. I would kill all of you who make the lives of Filipinos miserable,” end of quote.

Mr. Duterte’s outspoken vote to embark on a nationwide killing campaign against drug dealers and drug users was the foundation of his presidential electoral platform. During a campaign rally on 15 March 2016, he stated, quote, “When I become president, I will order the police to find those people dealing or using drugs and kill them. The funeral parlors will be packed.”

Following his election as president, as also explained this morning by Mr. Jeremy, on 9 May 2016, Mr. Duterte continued to declare unequivocally that his anti-drug campaign was focused on killing drug dealers and users. Speaking in Davao on 4 June 2016, he stated, quote, “If you are still into drugs, I’m going to kill you. Don’t take this as a joke. I’m not trying to make you laugh, son of bitches. I will really kill you,” end of quote.

The next month, Mr. Duterte referred to children killed in his drug war as, I quote, “Collateral damage.”

Mr. Duterte and his associates disregarded the most basic principle of law, human rights and human dignity.

In September 2016, after the then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon denounced the drug war killings, Mr. Duterte called him a fool, adding, quote, “I will continue the campaign against the criminals. I do not have any pity for them. I don’t give a shit. I am the President of the Philippines, not the Republic of the International Community,” end of quote.

In a Human Rights Watch report issued in March 2017, Mr. Duterte’s first six months in office were labeled as a human rights calamity for the Philippines.

Mr. Duterte repeated public statements encouraging the killing of alleged drug offenders were not authorical flourishes. They were operational directives. The repeated calls to kill alleged drug dealers and users is indicative of a government policy to direct an attack against a specific civilian population.

Published statements encouraged lethal force. Law enforcement operations were organized and resourced. The rhetoric of eradication was translated into practice.

The scale, coordination and continuity of operations, coupled with public encouragement of lethal enforcement, support the inference of policy. When violence is normalized, repeated, and institutionally defended as in the present case, it reflects policy. Turning to the alleged liability of Mr. Duterte.

The suspect is charged as indirect co-perpetrator under Article 25.3.A for committing the crimes jointly with others in fervor of a common plan or agreement to neutralize for violent crimes including murder, individual perceived or alleged to be involved in drug-related and other crimes.

The alternative is also charged under Article 25.3.B for ordering or inducing the Davao Death Squad and later the National Network to commit the crimes and under Article 25.3.C for aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting members of the Davao Death Squad and later the National Network to commit the crimes. Victims submit that the evidence presented by the prosecution allows to conclude that there are substantial grounds to believe that Mr. Duterte is criminally responsible for the crimes charged.

In particular, the evidence shows the existence of a common plan to kill individuals perceived by the authorities as implicated in drug-related crimes. The common plan originated in Davao in the late 80s when the suspect instructed members of the Death Squad, police officers and non-police aid men to conduct operations against the targeted individuals, provided funds and other resources to achieve the aim of the agreement. As already recalled, Mr. Duterte made unequivocal public statements encouraging police and civilians to kill alleged drug offenders.

Such statements indicate an intent to use the country’s law enforcement agencies to engage in murders. Mr. Duterte was proud of his achievements at the point that he put his method at the centre of his presidential campaign. When elected president, he adopted the same method as in Davao nationwide and continued to state publicly and unequivocally that his anti-drug campaign would focus on killing drug dealers and users.

Mr. Duterte relied on the support of the police, which he exercised effective control over, to execute the common plan. Their loyalty was reinforced through financial incentives, promotions and the maintenance of a system of impunity. Mr. Duterte had full knowledge of the crimes.

As the Chamber has already heard, on 15 March 2016, in Lingayen, he announced that if elected, he would order police to locate and kill individuals involved in drugs, warning that funeral parlours would be crowded. On 7 May 2016, the final day of campaigning for the presidential elections, Mr. Duterte made it clear that these threats were to be taken literally, and I quote, “All of you who are into drugs, you sons of bitches, I will really kill you. I have no patience, I have no middle ground,” end of quote.

Madam President, Your Honors, the loss victims carry is not measured only in the death of a loved one. It is measured in the empty chair at the dinner table, the birthdays that will never be celebrated, the dreams that ended abruptly and the futures that were taken from them.

As one of the victims put it, and I quote, “My loved one was not perfect, none of us are, but he was a human being. He was someone’s child, someone’s parent, someone’s partner. He deserved dignity, due process and the chance to defend himself. Instead, his life ended without warning, without explanation and without accountability. For many of us, the moment we learned of our loved one’s death was the moment our own lives changed forever. We were left with questions that no one in authority could answer. We were left with fear that speaking out would put us in danger. And we were left with the painful knowledge that the institutions meant to protect us had failed us.”

“The trauma of these events did not end with the loss of life. It continues every day. Families were left to navigate grief while facing stigma and suspicion. Many were told implicitly or explicitly that their loved ones had deserved what happened to them. They were made to feel ashamed for seeking answers. Some were threatened when they tried to file complaints. Others were told not to bother because nothing would come of it.”

“Children who witnessed violence now struggle with fear. Parents who lost their children live with enduring guilt and despair. Entire communities still carry the memory of nights filled with silence, shouting and uncertainty.”

Your Honors, the victim’s suffering is never abstract nor remote. It remains real, immediate and ongoing. Your Honors, trauma is not always visible. It resides in the silence of the ones who are afraid to speak. It lives in the hesitation of a child who no longer feels safe walking outside and in the constant fear of families who still look over their shoulders wondering where they will be targeted next.

For the victims, the confirmation of charges is not merely a legal step. It is a recognition that their loved ones mattered. It is an acknowledgement that what happened to them was wrong. It is a message that they have not been forgotten.

These proceedings offer something they had been denied in years. Hope. Hope that the truth will be established, that the one responsible will be held to account, that future generations will not endure the same suffering.

Justice cannot restore their loved ones, but it can restore dignity. Justice can affirm humanity. Justice can help them begin to heal.

Madam President, Your Honours, for the purpose of the confirmation of charges hearing, the prosecution must demonstrate substantial grounds to believe that Mr. Duterte committed each of the crimes charged. Victims submit that the evidence presented by the prosecution meets this evidentiary standard. The confirmation of all charges is not only legally warranted, it is essential to the integrity of international criminal justice.

The evidence before this chamber establishes reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity of murder and attempted murder were committed in the context of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population and that Mr. Duterte bears individual and criminal responsibility under Article 25 of the Rome Statute.

Your Honors, the victims have waited years for this moment. They have been silenced, stigmatized and denied justice in their own country.

Today, they stand before you with the hope that justice long denied may finally be within reach. This court is their last refuge. And today, on their behalf, we ask this chamber to affirm that their suffering matters, that their rights matter and that the rule of law extends even to the most powerful by confirming all the charges against Mr. Duterte and committing him to trial.

This concludes my part. Your Honors, I will give the floor to my colleague Mr. Andres for concluding our presentation.

/das