FORMER President Rodrigo Duterte’s chief counsel has dismissed claims by prosecution lawyers that the International Court of Justice (ICC) rejected their proposal for stricter protocols in establishing the identities of victims of the previous administrations bloody drug war.
“That never happened,” said Nicholas Kaufman, lead counsel for the defense, brushing aside assertions by prosecution lawyers Joel Butuyan and Kristina Conti that the ICC judges had denied the defense panel’s suggestions for tighter requirements in vetting the identities of victims linked to Duterte’s controversial war on drugs.
In a video posted by former Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque on Facebook, Kaufman countered that there was no such rejection from the ICC judges.
He clarified that the only reference point used was the Philippines’ Social Security System (SSS) standards for verifying identification.
“This whole thing about the judges rejecting my proposal, that never happened. All that happened was that there were two activist victims’ representatives by the names of Joel Butuyan and Kristina Conti, who made all sorts of assertions in the press that I had asked to restrict victims’ participation in the process by limiting the ID documents that could be used,” Kaufman explained.
“That never happened. All I was doing was, I was relying on what the Philippine Social Security System requires for ID to be verified in the Philippines,” he added.
Earlier, the ICC’s pre-trial chamber released a document stating that it would proceed with the registry’s alternative recommendation. In cases where standard identification is not available, the court will accept a declaration signed by two witnesses–each accompanied by valid identification documents to verify either the applicant’s identity or their relationship to the victim.
This stands in contrast to the Duterte camp’s initial proposal to limit identity verification to “a national identity card and/or a passport containing an up-to-date photograph.”
Kaufman clarified that what was submitted was an “observation” addressed to the Victims Participation and Reparations Section (VPRS), the ICC unit responsible for evaluating victim applications.
“This is not a question of the judges rejecting something that the defense asked for. This is the response that the defense made to the VPRS, which is the internal court unit, which is responsible for assessing victims’ applications,” Kaufman pointed out.
