Why was broadcast of Duterte's defense team presentation cut multiple times?
The broadcast of former president Rodrigo Duterte’s defense team's presentation at the International Criminal Court (ICC) had been cut multiple times on Thursday, just as judge Iulia Motoc noted public identification of victims and witnesses during the hearing.
Those tuning in to the online broadcast of Duterte's trial—which was also deliberately delayed for 30 minutes from the actual live trial—might have noticed multiple times the "no broadcast" advisory, particularly throughout the third session of the third day of the confirmation of charges on Feb. 26.
ICC did not give any explanation why it censored many parts, but before the opening of the third session, Motoc already said that, prior to that, "the defense disclosed information on several occasions that allowed for the identification of victims and witnesses."
"That must not be disclosed so as to ensure protection of witnesses and victims," Motoc said in French and translated to English during the broadcast.
The ICC judge said the identifying information provided by the defense included the witnesses' positions and the victims' nicknames.
"This was the appropriate recourse to implement the chamber's duty to protect the safety and well-being, including psychological well-being, the dignity, and privacy of victims and witnesses, in accordance with Article 68 of the Rome Statute, without having to hold the hearing in private or closed session," she said.
"Thus, the chamber has decided to maintain the redactions that were applied [by the prosecutors] earlier," she added, reminding the defense not to disclose any identifying information.
Still, the broadcast had been cut multiple times on the third session, including the time that the defense delivered its concluding statement, which wasn't heard by the public.
When the broadcast resumed, Motoc was already adjourning the hearing, before the prosecutor interrupted her to request for another minute of closed session with the defense, and then returned online again for the adjournment.