Prosecutor v. Duterte, the courtroom

International Criminal Court · Trial Chamber III · No. ICC‑01/21‑01/25

Courtroom View

The room, one moment at a time

The same case as the Chronological View, drawn as the room it happened in. Move the line along the bar, or step with Previous and Next, and the room changes with the moment: who was in it, who was only on a screen, and which parts of it stood empty.

Bench Registry Witness Victims Prosecution Defense Glass Public gallery

In the room

Presiding judge, Pre-Trial Chamber I

Motoc, J.

Iulia Antoanella Motoc. Presided from the arrest warrant to the decision confirming the charges, and ran the first appearance and the four-day hearing in February 2026.

Tr. T-002, 2:21 · Tr. T-004, 3:18–20
Judge, Pre-Trial Chamber I

Alapini-Gansou, J.

Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou. One of the three judges who issued the warrant and confirmed the charges.

Tr. T-002, 2:21 · Tr. T-004, 3:18–20
Judge, Pre-Trial Chamber I

Flores Liera, J.

María del Socorro Flores Liera. Dissented when the hearing on the charges was postponed in September 2025, and joined the unanimous decision confirming them.

Tr. T-002, 2:21 · Record 267-OPI-Red
Presiding judge, Trial Chamber III

Korner, J.

Joanna Korner, elected to preside on April 29, 2026. She and the two judges beside her will hear the trial and decide the verdict.

Record 421 · Tr. T-009, 1:21–25 · Reporting: Rappler, Oct 13, 2026, Rappler, Nov 2, 2026
Judge, Trial Chamber III

Paek, J.

Keebong Paek. Named to the trial chamber on April 24, 2026.

Record 420 · Tr. T-009, 1:1–8
Judge, Trial Chamber III

Guillou, J.

Nicolas Guillou. Named to the trial chamber on April 24, 2026.

Record 420 · Tr. T-009, 1:1–8
Presiding judge, Appeals Chamber

Perrin de Brichambaut, J.

Marc Perrin de Brichambaut presided over the Philippine government’s appeal and read the summary. He was one of the two judges who dissented.

Tr. T-001, 1:16–20 · Record 77-OPI
Appeals judge

Hofmański, J.

Piotr Hofmański. In the majority of three.

Tr. T-001, 1:19
Appeals judge

Ibáñez Carranza, J.

Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza. In the majority of three in 2023. She presided over both of his own appeals later.

Tr. T-001, 1:19
Appeals judge

Bossa, J.

Solomy Balungi Bossa. In the majority of three.

Tr. T-001, 1:20
Appeals judge

Lordkipanidze, J.

Gocha Lordkipanidze. Dissented in 2023, saying the court could not use its power after the Philippines had left.

Tr. T-001, 1:20 · Record 77-OPI
Presiding judge, Appeals Chamber

Ibáñez Carranza, J.

Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza presided over both of his appeals, on release and on the court’s power, and read both summaries.

Tr. T-003, 1:20–25 · Tr. T-008, 1:20–24
Appeals judge

Lordkipanidze, J.

Gocha Lordkipanidze. Sat to the presiding judge’s right on November 28, 2025. On April 22, 2026, he was the one judge who disagreed in part.

Tr. T-003, 1:24 · Record 415-OPI
Appeals judge

Damdin, J.

Erdenebalsuren Damdin. Sat to the presiding judge’s left on November 28, 2025.

Tr. T-003, 1:24 · Tr. T-008, 1:23
Appeals judge

Akane, J.

Tomoko Akane. One of the five judges on both appeals. The presiding judge said she was away on mission when the first judgment was read.

Tr. T-003, 1:25 · Tr. T-008, 1:22
Appeals judge

Bossa, J.

Solomy Balungi Bossa. One of the five judges on both appeals, and also away on mission on November 28, 2025.

Tr. T-003, 1:25 · Tr. T-008, 1:22
The Registry

The court officer

Calls the case at the start of every hearing and says whether the session is open or closed. The transcripts record the officer speaking and do not give a name.

Tr. T-004, 5:16 · Tr. T-009, 1:15–18
For the Registry

Marc Dubuisson

Director of the Division of Judicial Services, there for the Registrar with six colleagues, among them the heads of the language, victims and cooperation sections, to answer the trial judges’ questions about running the trial.

Tr. T-009, 2:19–3:3
For the Registry

Soraya Brikci

Of the Registry section that handles victims’ applications, with her colleague Alexandra David.

Tr. T-001, 2:22–23
The Prosecutor until June 2021

Fatou Bensouda

Opened the first look at the killings in February 2018 and asked the judges for a full investigation in May 2021, near the end of her term.

Record 7-Red · Record 309 ¶ 2
The Prosecutor

Karim Khan

Asked to restart the investigation in 2022 and for the arrest warrant in 2025, and appeared in person at the first hearing. Appeals judges took him off the case in October 2025 over work he had done for victims before he held the office.

Tr. T-002, 2:7–11 · Record 286-Red p. 18
Deputy Prosecutor

Mame Mandiaye Niang

Has led the case since the chief prosecutor was removed. Made the opening statement on February 23, 2026. He was away for part of the second day and back for the third.

Tr. T-004, 2:1–5 · Tr. T-006, 1:25–2:2
Senior trial lawyer

Julian Nicholls

Began the prosecution’s presentation on February 23, 2026, and made its closing argument on the 27th. He has spoken for the prosecution at both status conferences on the record.

Tr. T-004, 2:1–5 · Tr. T-009, 1:21–25 · Tr. T-010, 2:7–9 · Reporting: Rappler, Oct 13, 2026, Rappler, Nov 2, 2026
Trial lawyer

Edward Jeremy

At the first appearance and every hearing on the record since. Presented counts two and three on February 24, 2026.

Tr. T-002, 2:8 · Tr. T-005, 2:19 · Tr. T-009, 1:21–25
Trial lawyer

Robynne Croft

On the prosecution’s team since at least the 2023 appeal. Presented the wider attack and the ways he is said to be responsible on February 24, 2026.

Tr. T-001, 2:11 · Tr. T-005, 18:6 · Tr. T-009, 1:21–25
Case manager

James Miriti

Named on the prosecution’s team on each day of the February 2026 hearing and at both status conferences on the record.

Tr. T-004, 2:1–5 · Tr. T-009, 1:21–25
Trial lawyer

Maria Berdennikova

Named on the prosecution’s team on February 23 and May 27, 2026.

Tr. T-004, 2:1–5 · Tr. T-009, 1:21–25
Associate trial lawyer

Hannah Allen

Named on the prosecution’s team on November 28, 2025, and on February 23 and May 27, 2026.

Tr. T-003, 2:14–16 · Tr. T-004, 2:1–5 · Tr. T-009, 1:21–25
Associate trial lawyer

Eun Gyo Jeong

Joined the team in the room on February 24, 2026. The prosecution told the judges its team was unchanged on the two days after, apart from one addition.

Tr. T-005, 2:2 · Tr. T-007, 1:23–25
Associate trial lawyer

Sylvie Wakchom

Joined the team in the room on February 24, 2026, and was at the second status conference.

Tr. T-005, 2:3 · Tr. T-010, 2:8
Associate trial lawyer

Hai Do Duc

Named as the one addition to the team on February 26, 2026.

Tr. T-006, 1:25–2:2
International cooperation adviser

Chantal Daniels

Introduced by the Prosecutor at the first appearance.

Tr. T-002, 2:7–11
Case manager

Grace Goh

Introduced by the Prosecutor at the first appearance.

Tr. T-002, 2:7–11
Senior trial lawyer

Anton Steynberg

Led for the prosecution when the judgment on the Philippine government’s appeal was read.

Tr. T-001, 2:8–12
Trial lawyer

Colin Black

With the prosecution on July 18, 2023.

Tr. T-001, 2:9
Associate trial lawyer

Inbal Djalovski

With the prosecution on July 18, 2023.

Tr. T-001, 2:10
Senior appeals counsel

Helen Brady

Spoke for the prosecution when the judgment on release was read.

Tr. T-003, 2:12–16
Appeals counsel

Matteo Costi

With the prosecution on November 28, 2025.

Tr. T-003, 2:14
Appeals counsel

Meritxell Regué Blasi

Spoke for the prosecution when the judgment on the court’s power was read.

Tr. T-008, 2:9–11
Appeals counsel

Matthew Cross

With the prosecution on April 22, 2026.

Tr. T-008, 2:10
For the prosecution

Erasmus Lovell-Jones

Named on the prosecution’s team at the first status conference.

Tr. T-009, 1:21–25
For the prosecution

Emma Norton

Named on the prosecution’s team at the first status conference.

Tr. T-009, 1:21–25
For the prosecution

Zinzana Zjajo

Named on the prosecution’s team at the second status conference.

Tr. T-010, 2:8
The accused

Rodrigo Roa Duterte

Held at the court’s detention center since March 12, 2025. He was on a screen at the first hearing and gave up his right to attend every hearing after it, until reporting places him in the courtroom on September 16, 2026. He came again on October 13, and stayed away from the last conference, on November 2, by a waiver the judges accepted. He cannot give up that right for the trial as a whole.

Tr. T-002, 2:12–15 · Record 387 ¶ 6 · Tr. T-009, 2:6–9 · Reporting: VERA Files, Sept 16, 2026 · GMA News, Oct 13, 2026 · Record 538
Counsel at the first appearance

Salvador Medialdea

His former executive secretary, and the only lawyer with him on March 14, 2025. He told the judges the transfer to The Hague was “a pure and simple kidnapping.”

Tr. T-002, 2:19–20, 7:8–12
Lead counsel until May 2026

Nicholas Kaufman

Appointed on March 18, 2025. Brought the challenges on the court’s power, release and fitness, and argued the defense’s whole case at the February 2026 hearing. He left the case on May 11, 2026.

Record 92-Red · Tr. T-004, 2:20–25 · Record 435
Associate counsel until May 2026

Dov Jacobs

Appointed on April 7, 2025. Sat to lead counsel’s left at the February 2026 hearing. He left the case on May 8, 2026.

Record 106 · Tr. T-004, 2:22 · Record 430
Lead counsel

Peter Haynes KC

Appointed on May 15, 2026. He has spoken for the defense at every hearing on the record since.

Record 441 · Tr. T-009, 2:2–4 · Reporting: Rappler, Oct 13, 2026, Rappler, Nov 2, 2026
Associate counsel

Kate Gibson

Appointed on May 18, 2026.

Record 443 · Tr. T-009, 2:2 · Tr. T-010, 2:3
For the defense

Havneet Sethi

On the defense team under both lead counsel. Sat to Kaufman’s right in February 2026 and was with Haynes on June 23, 2026.

Tr. T-004, 2:22 · Tr. T-010, 2:3
For the defense

Alexandre Desevedavy

On the defense team under both lead counsel.

Tr. T-003, 2:4 · Tr. T-009, 2:2–3
For the defense

Sandrine De Sena

On the defense team under both lead counsel.

Tr. T-003, 2:5 · Tr. T-009, 2:3
For the defense

Davide Rancati

On Kaufman’s team at the February 2026 hearing and when the judgment on the court’s power was read.

Tr. T-004, 2:23 · Tr. T-008, 2:4
For the defense

Nicholas Rossouw

On Kaufman’s team at the February 2026 hearing and on April 22, 2026.

Tr. T-004, 2:25 · Tr. T-008, 2:6
For the defense

Kailin Chen

On Kaufman’s team at the February 2026 hearing and on April 22, 2026.

Tr. T-004, 2:25 · Tr. T-008, 2:5
For the defense

Ms. Daniel

Named by lead counsel only as Ms Daniel, among the three who assisted him on June 23, 2026.

Tr. T-010, 2:3
Attending in support

Six lawyers from the Philippines

Salvador Medialdea, Martin Delgra, Silvestre Bello, Alfredo Lim, Caesar Dulay and Salvador Panelo. Kaufman introduced them on the first day as attorneys “attending and supporting us,” and said the defense was the same on each day after.

Tr. T-004, 3:1–5 · Tr. T-007, 2:8
A country, objecting

The Republic of the Philippines

The government asked the court to stand back in 2021 and appealed when it would not. On July 18, 2023, it was represented by its ambassador, Eduardo Malaya, with Sarah Bafadhel, Jarie Osias, Marisar Cabatingan and Sarah Cruz. There was no accused yet, so it is drawn at the table the defense later used.

Tr. T-001, 1:24–2:5 · Record 14
For the victims

Paolina Massidda

Principal counsel of the court’s own Office of Public Counsel for Victims, and one of the three lawyers appointed for the 539 victims taking part. She has been at every hearing on the record since November 2025.

Tr. T-003, 2:19–23 · Tr. T-004, 3:11–15 · Tr. T-010, 2:13 · Reporting: Rappler, Nov 2, 2026
For the victims

Joel Butuyan

One of the three lawyers appointed for the victims. Made their opening statement on February 23, 2026, and spoke at the detention hearing on the 27th. On February 24 the team said one member could not attend and did not say who.

Tr. T-004, 17:23 · Tr. T-005, 2:7–9 · Tr. T-007, 57:1
For the victims

Gilbert Andres

One of the three lawyers appointed for the victims. Spoke on February 24, 2026, and made their closing statement on the 27th.

Tr. T-005, 55:13 · Tr. T-007, 30:3
Legal officer for the victims’ team

Orchlon Narantsetseg

Of the Office of Public Counsel for Victims.

Tr. T-003, 2:20 · Tr. T-009, 2:14
Legal officer for the victims’ team

Anne Grabowski

Of the Office of Public Counsel for Victims.

Tr. T-003, 2:21 · Tr. T-010, 2:13
Legal officer for the victims’ team

Ludovica Vetruccio

Of the Office of Public Counsel for Victims. In the room in 2023 and again at the first status conference.

Tr. T-001, 2:16–17 · Tr. T-009, 2:14
For victims, on the appeal

Sarah Pellet

Of the Office of Public Counsel for Victims, which put victims’ views to the appeals judges in 2023, before there was a case against any one person.

Tr. T-001, 2:16–17
Where a jury would be

Empty: no victims in the case yet

Three judges decide the verdict at this court, so the room has no jury box. This side of the room is where the lawyers for the victims sit. On this date nobody had been let into the case as a victim. The first were let in on January 26, 2026.

Record 358
Where a jury would be

Not recorded

Three judges decide the verdict at this court, so the room has no jury box. This side of the room is where the lawyers for the victims sit. The transcript of this hearing is not public yet, so nobody is marked here. The victims’ lawyers were at every other hearing from November 2025 on.
Where a jury would be

No jury at this court

Three judges decide the verdict at this court, so the room has no jury box. This side of the room is where the lawyers for the victims sit. People harmed by the charged crimes can apply to take part, and 539 have been let in. Their lawyers file papers and speak in court. They are not a side, and they do not bring the charges.

ICC, case information sheet · ICC courtroom diagram, 2009
The bench

Three judges, on paper

The steps of the investigation stage were decided in writing by Pre-Trial Chamber I, which had a different line-up then from the three judges who later issued the warrant. Nobody sat in a courtroom for them.

Record 83 ¶ 2
The bench

Not recorded

Trial Chamber III held this conference. Its transcript is not public yet, so the three judges are drawn as in the case and not marked in the room.
The Registry

Not recorded

A court officer sits here at every hearing. The transcript of this one is not public yet.
The Registry

Not in use

The court’s own staff sit in front of the judges. A court officer calls the case and keeps the record, and interpreters work from booths this plan does not draw. Nothing was heard on this date.
The prosecution table

Not recorded

The transcript of this hearing is not public yet, so the prosecution’s lawyers are drawn as in the case and not marked in the room.
The witness seat

Empty: no witness yet

Nobody has testified in this case. Every hearing so far has been lawyers speaking to judges. Witnesses begin when the trial does, on November 30, 2026. At this court a witness sits in the middle of the room and faces the judges, and some here are expected to testify by video link from the Philippines.

ICC courtroom diagram, 2009 · Record 509-Red ¶ 41
The witness seat

Not in use

Where a witness sits to testify, in the middle of the room and facing the judges. It has not been used in this case yet.

ICC courtroom diagram, 2009
The public gallery

Not recorded

The transcripts list the lawyers and say nothing about who watched, so the benches are drawn empty. At this court the public sits behind glass. The hearings were open, apart from stretches held in closed session, and the judges opened several by welcoming people following from outside the courtroom.

ICC courtroom diagram, 2009 · Tr. T-006, 1:13–15, 24:17–19
The public gallery

Not in use

Nothing was heard in court on this date, so there was nothing to watch. These benches are where the public and the press sit when there is.
The bench

Empty: no case yet

Where the judges sit, raised above the rest of the room. There are three for a hearing or a trial and five for an appeal. On this date nothing about these events had reached a judge.
The Registry

Empty: no case yet

Where the court’s own staff sit, in front of the judges. On this date nothing about these events had reached a judge.
The witness seat

Empty: no case yet

Where a witness sits to testify, in the middle of the room and facing the judges. On this date nothing about these events had reached a judge.
Where a jury would be

Empty: no case yet

Three judges decide the verdict at this court, so the room has no jury box. This side of the room is where the lawyers for the victims sit. On this date nothing about these events had reached a judge.
The prosecution table

Empty: no case yet

Where the side that brings the case sits with its lawyers. It is always drawn on the left here. On this date nothing about these events had reached a judge.
The defense table

Empty: no case yet

Where the person charged sits with his lawyers. On this date nothing about these events had reached a judge.
The public gallery

Empty: no case yet

Seats for the public and the press, behind glass at this court. On this date nothing about these events had reached a judge.

Days in court

Jul 18, 2023 The Appeals Chamber reads out its judgment on the Philippine government’s appeal. Courtroom 1, from 10 a.m. There was no accused yet. Tr. T-001, 1:1–2:24
Mar 14, 2025 First appearance before Pre-Trial Chamber I. Courtroom 1, 2:35 to 3 p.m. He took part by video from the detention center. Tr. T-002, 2:7–25
Nov 28, 2025 The Appeals Chamber reads out its judgment on release. Three of its five judges were on the bench, and two were away. Tr. T-003, 1:22–2:23
Feb 23, 2026 Day one of the hearing on the charges before Pre-Trial Chamber I. The charges were read and each side opened. Tr. T-004, 1:25–3:15
Feb 24, 2026 Day two. The prosecution finished its presentation and the victims’ lawyers made theirs. Tr. T-005, 1:22–2:13
Feb 26, 2026 Day three. The defense’s presentation, part of it in closed session. Tr. T-006, 1:22–2:11
Feb 27, 2026 Day four. Closing arguments, and then the yearly hearing on his detention. Tr. T-007, 1:21–2:8, 55:13
Apr 22, 2026 The Appeals Chamber reads out its judgment on the court’s power over the case. Courtroom 1, from 11 a.m. Tr. T-008, 1:22–2:17
May 27, 2026 First status conference before Trial Chamber III, from 9:31 a.m. to 2:17 p.m. The trial date was set. Tr. T-009, 1:21–3:3
Jun 23, 2026 Second status conference. A short one, with nobody there from the Registry’s management. Tr. T-010, 2:3–14, 3:15
Sept 16, 2026 Third status conference. Its transcript is not public yet, so only he is marked in the room, from reporting that day. Reporting: VERA Files, Sept 16, 2026
Oct 13, 2026 Fourth status conference. Its transcript is confidential, so only the people reporting puts in the room are marked: the accused, the presiding judge, the senior trial lawyer and his lead counsel. Reporting: Rappler, Oct 13, 2026 · GMA News, Oct 13, 2026
Nov 2, 2026 Fifth and last status conference before the trial. He stayed away by waiver. The transcript is not public yet, so only the people reporting puts in the room are marked: the presiding judge, the senior trial lawyer, his lead counsel and a lawyer for the victims. Record 538 · Reporting: Rappler, Nov 2, 2026
Oct 2024 An inquiry committee of the Philippine Senate. It was not a hearing of this court and nobody from the case was in this room.

Back to the case

Notes

How this was made, and what it leaves out

Source

Built from the court’s own public record of the case, which held 577 documents on November 8, 2026. These pages rest on the decisions, the charges, each side’s main filings and the transcripts of ten hearings, and not on a reading of every annex. Every characterization here comes from a filing, a transcript or a signed decision, and each side is quoted from its own filings and its own lawyers.

Every record number in a citation opens that document in the ICC Legal Tools Database, an open online library that carries the court’s public records. Citations to a page open the document at that page.

What is blacked out

A great deal. Most filings exist twice, a confidential version and a public one with parts redacted, and these pages can only read the public one. In the charges that takes out the names of all but five of the 78 people and the dates and places of most of the 49 incidents. Nearly every witness is only a number, like P-0002. The medical findings about him are blacked out, and so is the country he asked to be released to.

His lawyer at the time told the judges the redactions were “so sweeping that virtually nothing intelligible remains of the 49 incidents” for the public to read. The presiding judge answered that the defense sees all of it, and that “it just is not available to the public.”

Record 178-Red2 ¶¶ 27–77 · Tr. T-007, 44:17–20, 52:5–7

Names and numbers

Victims are named here only where the public charges name them, which is five people. The charges also name eight officials the prosecution says shared the plan with him. None of the eight is on trial in this case, and the judges wrote that what they said about those eight is not a finding about anyone’s guilt but his.

The charges covered 78 people, and in October 2026 the trial judges let in seven more incidents. The prosecution calls that a fraction. The Philippine government’s own count of people killed in police anti-drug operations from July 2016 to February 2019 was 5,281, and the estimates the court cited when it opened the investigation ran from 12,000 to 30,000. A wider number is used on these pages only with whose number it is.

Record 417-Red ¶ 85 · Record 519-Red ¶ 47 · Record 12 ¶¶ 39, 67

What this is not

Not legal advice, not a finding, and not a verdict. Judges have said twice that there is enough here to go on, once to order his arrest and once at the confirmation of charges, and both times the test was lower than proof. A conviction takes proof beyond reasonable doubt. No witness has testified yet, and his lawyer told the court in February 2026 that he maintains his innocence.

The two sides have formally agreed on four facts so far: when and where he was born, his nationality, what the initials PRRD stand for, and what a barangay is. Everything else is in dispute. Where the record doesn’t reach, these pages say so and stop.

Tr. T-004, 38:17 · Record 259-Red ¶ 3

Tell me what I got wrong

If something here is missed, misrepresented or unfairly portrayed, let me know. Point me at a filing or record and I will verify it on my end. I actively look to correct, improve and remain unbiased.

No account, no name, no email. The submission stores what you typed, your address and your browser string, to make abuse traceable and for nothing else.

Record reviewed through November 8, 2026. Nothing filed after that date is reflected here.

Terms

Plain English

Words these pages use because the court uses them. A few are special to this court, which has no jury and gives victims a voice of their own.

The court

International Criminal Court: A permanent court in The Hague, in the Netherlands, that tries individual people for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression. It is not part of the United Nations, and it only has power where its treaty gives it power.
Rome Statute: The treaty that set up the court and says what it can do. A country that ratifies it becomes a State Party, and the court can then try crimes committed on its soil or by its nationals.
Withdrawal: A country leaving the treaty. It takes effect one year after the country gives notice, and the treaty says leaving does not stop the court from carrying on with a matter it was already considering.
The Prosecutor: The head of the court’s Office of the Prosecutor, which investigates and brings cases on its own authority. Every case here is titled in the Prosecutor’s name.
Chamber: A panel of judges. A Pre-Trial Chamber of three handles a case up to the decision to send it to trial, a Trial Chamber of three hears the trial, and the Appeals Chamber of five hears appeals. There is no jury.
Registry: The court’s administration. It runs the courtroom, the detention center, the records, and the support given to witnesses and victims. It takes no side.
Accused: What this court calls the person on trial once the charges are confirmed. Before that the word is suspect.
Victims’ lawyers: At this court people harmed by the charged crimes can apply to take part. They do not bring the case and are not a side, but lawyers appointed for them can file papers and speak in court on what affects them. The court’s term is common legal representatives.

The paperwork

Record number: How a filing is cited. ICC-01/21-01/25-417 is the 417th document in this case, shortened here to Record 417. “Red” on the end means it is the public version with parts blacked out.
Redacted: Blacked out. Most filings here exist in a confidential version and a public one with names, dates or places removed, usually to protect witnesses and victims.
Transcript: The word-for-word record of a hearing. Cited by page and line, so 9:14 means page 9, line 14.
Filing: Any document a side or the court puts on the record. A side’s request is answered by a response, and sometimes that is answered by a reply.
Trial brief: A written outline, filed before trial, of the case a side means to prove and the evidence it will use.
Disclosure: The prosecution handing its evidence to the defense before trial, including anything that might help the defense.

The charges

Crimes against humanity: Certain acts, murder among them, when they are part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population, carried out under a government’s or an organization’s policy.
Count: One charge. This case has three.
Incident: One of the specific killings or attempted killings the prosecution lists as an example under a count.
Widespread or systematic attack: What turns a murder into a crime against humanity. Widespread is about scale. Systematic is about being organized and following a pattern. Either is enough, and the attack has to be aimed at civilians.
Policy: The attack has to carry out the policy of a government or an organization. It does not have to be written down, and it can be shown by what was done and said.
Common plan: An agreement between two or more people that, if carried out, will lead to crimes. It is the core of the first way the prosecution says he is responsible.
Indirect co-perpetration: Committing a crime together with others and through other people. The person need not have been at the scene. The prosecution has to show a common plan, an essential part in it, and control over the people who did the killing.
Ordering or inducing: Telling someone to commit a crime from a position of authority, or prompting them to commit it.
Aiding and abetting: Helping or encouraging a crime that someone else commits, in order to make it easier.
“Neutralize”: The word in the Philippine police order that began the national anti-drug campaign in 2016. The prosecution says it meant kill. The defense says it meant arrest or subdue. The court’s records spell it “neutralise.”
Davao Death Squad: What the charges call a group of police officers and hired gunmen said to have killed people accused of crime in Davao City. The prosecution says he created and ran it. His lawyers have called it a fiction.
Barangay: The smallest unit of local government in the Philippines, about the size of a village or a neighborhood.
Buy-bust: A police sting in which an officer poses as a drug buyer and the seller is arrested in the act.
Nanlaban: Tagalog for “fought back.” It is what Philippine police reports say of a suspect who was shot after resisting arrest.

How a case moves

Jurisdiction: Whether this court has the power to hear this case at all. Here that depends on dates, because the Philippines left the court in 2019.
Preliminary examination: The Prosecutor’s first look at a set of events, to decide whether to ask for a full investigation. No judge is involved yet.
Investigation: The formal stage of gathering evidence. When the Prosecutor starts one on their own, three judges have to authorize it first.
Deferral: The court is meant to step in only when a country is not genuinely investigating or prosecuting the crimes itself. A country can ask the Prosecutor to stand back in favor of its own investigation.
Arrest warrant: A court order to arrest someone. Judges issue one when there are reasonable grounds to believe the person committed a crime and an arrest appears necessary.
Surrender: A country handing an arrested person over to the court. The court has no police of its own.
First appearance: A short hearing soon after someone arrives. The judges check who the person is, that they know the charges and their rights, and set a date for the next stage.
Interim release: Being let out of detention while the case goes on, with or without conditions. It is refused if there is a risk the person would flee, interfere with the case, or keep committing crimes.
Fitness to stand trial: Whether a person is able to understand the proceedings, follow the evidence and instruct their lawyers. It is a legal question that doctors inform and judges decide.
Waiver: Giving up a right in writing. He has waived his right to be present at most hearings so far. He cannot do that for the trial as a whole.
Disqualification: Removing a judge, prosecutor or lawyer from a case because their impartiality could reasonably be doubted.
Confirmation of charges: The stage where three judges decide whether the prosecution has enough to justify a trial. It is a filter, and it is not a verdict.
Status conference: A hearing about scheduling and logistics. No evidence is heard.
Appeal: Asking the five appeals judges to overturn a decision. Some decisions can be appealed as of right. For others the judges who made the decision must first give leave, meaning permission.
Dissent: A judge’s written disagreement with the majority. It changes nothing in the result.
Struck: Removed from the record or from the case, so that it cannot be relied on.

The stamp on a ruling

Granted: The judges said yes to the request on this card, whichever side made it.
Granted in part: The judges gave some of what was asked for and refused the rest.
Denied: The judges said no to the request on this card, whichever side made it. When a challenge is denied, what it challenged stands.
Dismissed: The appeals judges turned the appeal down, so the decision it was against stands.
Confirmed: The charges passed confirmation: the judges found enough evidence to send them to trial. It is not a finding of guilt.

Proof

Standards of proof: How sure the judges have to be. Reasonable grounds to believe is enough for an arrest warrant. Substantial grounds to believe is enough to send a case to trial. A conviction takes proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Burden of proof: Which side has to prove a thing. In a criminal trial it is the prosecution, and the accused does not have to prove anything.
Insider witness: A witness who was part of the group or operation being described, such as a former police officer or gunman.
Limited-use assurance: A written promise from the prosecution that what a witness says in an interview will not be used against that witness at this court. It is not immunity, and it is off if the witness lies.
Hearsay: Repeating what someone else said to prove it was true. This court can admit it, and decides how much weight it deserves.
Corroboration: Other evidence that backs up what a witness says.
Prior recorded testimony: A witness’s earlier statement or interview, admitted in place of some or all of their testimony in court. The court’s rules call it Rule 68.
Reparations: What a convicted person can be ordered to provide to victims, such as compensation. It is decided only after a conviction.