The Office of the Prosecutor and the Office of the Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) asked the Appeals Chamber to dismiss the appeal of former president Rodrigo Duterte challenging a pre-trial chamber ruling that affirmed the court’s jurisdiction over his case.

In a 22-page submission signed by ICC Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang, the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor said that the Appeals Chamber should dismiss the appeal “because it fails to show any error in the Decision warranting reversal.”

“Each of the four grounds of appeal is incorrect. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Court in this situation should be upheld, and proceedings in this case should continue,” it said, adding that the decision was in accordance with the principles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).

“It (The Chamber) likewise correctly determined that a “matter under consideration” can encompass a preliminary examination, as in this situation, and that the “Court” includes the Office of the Prosecutor,” the Prosecution added.

It furthered that the Chamber correctly interpreted that the ICC can “exercise its jurisdiction” over the crimes allegedly committed in the Philippines while it was still a state party “because the Prosecution had commenced the preliminary examination before the Philippines had either notified its intention to withdraw or before that withdrawal became effective.”

The Philippines notified its intent to withdraw from the Rome Statute in March 2018, a month after the preliminary examination started in February 2018. The withdrawal took effect in March 2019.

The OPCV, represented by Principal Counsel Paolina Massidda, likewise stressed the importance of waiting for a year before the withdrawal from the Rome Statute takes effect.

“In the Impugned Decision, the Chamber also held that the object and purpose of the one-year period is, inter alia, to prevent a State Party from withdrawing from the Statute with immediate effect once it discovers that alleged crimes for which it bears responsibility are being considered by the Court,” it said.

“In fact, the Statute does not indicate at all that the OTP has only one year to seek an investigation after a State notifies its intention to withdraw. No such time limit is imposed upon the OTP, except the specific conditions provided in article 127(2) of the Statute as discussed. Therefore, the Chamber was correct in rejecting the Defence’s arguments in this regard,” it added.

The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I (PTC I) affirmed its jurisdiction on Duterte’s case last Oct. 23, with the defense lodging its Notice of Appeal and Appeal Brief on Oct. 28. and Nov. 14, respectively.