The Prosecutor vs. Rodrigo Roa Duterte

Ok

Original: English No. ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 Date: 6 March 2026

THE APPEALS CHAMBER

Before: Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, Presiding Judge Tomoko Akane Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa Judge Gocha Lordkipanidze Judge Erdenebalsuren Damdin

SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v. RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE

Public redacted

Judgment on the appeal against Pre-Trial Chamber I ’s “ Decision on the review of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s detention”

No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 1/29

Judgment to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court to:

☒ The Office of the Prosecutor ☒ Counsel for the Defence

☒ Legal Representatives of the Victims ☐ Legal Representatives of the Applicants

☐ Unrepresented Victims ☐ Unrepresented Applicants

(Participation/Reparation)

☐ The Office of Public Counsel for ☐ The Office of Public Counsel for the

Victims Defence

☐ States’ Representatives ☐ Amicus Curiae

REGISTRY

Registrar ☐ Counsel Support Section Mr Osvaldo Zavala Giler ☐ Victims and Witnesses Unit ☐ Detention Section ☐ Victims Participation and Reparations ☐ Other

Section

No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 2/29

The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court,

In the appeal of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte against Pre-Trial Chamber I ’s “Decision on the review of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s detention” of 26 January 2026 (ICC-01/21- 01/25-357-Red),

After deliberation,

Delivers the following

J U D G M E N T

Pre-Trial Chamber I ’s “Decision on the review of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s detention ” of 26 January 2026 (ICC-01/21-01/25-357-Red) is confirmed.

REASONS

I. INTRODUCTION

This judgment is with respect to the appeal of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte (hereinafter: “Mr Duterte”) against the “Decision on the review of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s detentio n”, issued on 26 January 2026, pursuant to article 60(3) of the Statute 1 (hereinafter: “Impugned Decision”). In the Impugned Decision, Pre-Trial Chamber I (hereinafter: “Pre - Trial Chamber”) assessed the health condition of Mr Duterte as part of its assessment regarding the risk factors under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute identified in its initial decision on interim release. The Pre-Trial Chamber found, inter alia , that there were no new or changed circumstances requiring the modification of its 2 prior ruling on the existence of the risks under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute, and remanded Mr Duterte in detention.

1 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the review of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s detention , ICC-01/21-01/25- 357-Conf (a public redacted version registered on the same day, ICC-01/21-01/25-357-Red). 2 Impugned Decision , paras 20-42. Impugned Decision , para. 43. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 3/29

In making such determination, the Pre-Trial Chamber, inter alia , disregarded a report concerning the health condition of Mr Duterte submitted by the Defence for Mr Duterte (hereinafter: “Defence”) .

The Defence raises one ground of appeal with respect to this issue. The Defence submits that the Pre-Trial Chamber erred in fact and in law, and abused its discretion, when it disregarded the report on the basis that it had emanated from a party to the proceedings, and that the alleged errors materially affected the Impugned Decision. In particular, the Defence argues that the report constitutes a new fact in respect of Mr Duterte’s health condition, and therefore a changed circumstance, within the meaning of article 60(3) of the Statute. The Defence requests that the Appeals Chamber reverse the Impugned Decision and order the immediate release of Mr Duterte.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 7 March 2025, the Pre-Trial Chamber issued a warrant of arrest against Mr Duterte for the crime against humanity of murder, pursuant to article 7(1)(a) of the Statute, allegedly committed in the Republic of the Philippines between 1 November 5 2011 and 16 March 2019 (hereinafter: “Arrest Warrant”).

6 On 12 March 2025, Mr Duterte was surrendered to the Court.

On 4 July 2025, the Deputy Prosecutor (hereinafter: “Prosecutor”) filed the “Document Containing the Charges”, submitting that Mr Duterte is criminally responsible for the crimes against humanity of murder and attempted murder, pursuant to article 7(1)(a) of the Statute, allegedly committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population on the territory of the Republic of the 7 Philippines between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019.

On 8 September 2025, the Pre-Trial Chamber issued an order, instructing the Registry to submit to it a shortlist of experts for the purpose of a medical examination

Impugned Decision , paras 22-30. 5 Warrant of Arrest for Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte , ICC-01/21-01/25-83-SECRET-EXP (reclassified as public on 17 March 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-83). 6 See ICC Press Release, Situation in the Philippines: Rodrigo Roa Duterte in ICC custody , 12 March 2025. 7 Document Containing the Charges , ICC-01/21-01/25-178-Conf (a public redacted version registered on 22 September 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-178-Red; a public lesser redacted version registered on 13 February 2026, ICC-01/21-01/25-178-Red1). No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 4/29

of Mr Duterte, under rules 113 and 135 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence

8

(hereinafte r: “Rules”).

On 24 September 2025, the Pre-Trial Chamber, on the basis of the shortlist of

medical experts provided by the Registry and following the observations and/or

9

requests of the parties and participants, appointed a panel of three experts for the

10

purpose of a medical examination of Mr Duterte (hereinafter: “ Panel ”).

On 26 September 2025, following two requests by the Defence for interim

11

release, the Pre-Trial Chamber issued its initial decision on detention, pursuant to

article 60(2) of the Statute, rejecting both requests and ordering the continued detention

12

of Mr Duterte (hereinafter: “ Initial Decision on Detention ”) .

13

On 28 November 2025, following an appeal of the Defence, the Appeals

Chamber confirmed the Initial Decision on Detention (hereinafter: “ Duterte OA2

14

Judgment”) .

8 Order pursuant to rules 113 and 135 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence , 8 September 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-268-Conf (reclassified as public on 7 October 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-268) (hereinafter: “Order of 8 September 2025”) . 9 See Registry Submission of a Shortlist of Medical Experts pursuant to ICC-01/21-01/25-268-Conf, 15 September 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-270-Conf, with confidential Annexes I and II (hereinafter: “Registry’s Shortlist of Medical Experts ”) ; Prosecution’s Observations on the “Registry Submission of a Shortlist of Medical Experts pursuant to ICC-01/21-01/25-268- Conf” (ICC -01/21-01/25-270-Conf), 18 September 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-276-Conf; Defence Observations on Registry Submission ICC- 01/21-01/25-270-Conf, 18 September 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-274-Conf; Observations on behalf of Victims on the “Registry Submission of a Shortlist of Medical Experts pur suant to ICC-01/21-01/25- 268- Conf”, 18 September 2025, ICC -01/21-01/25-275-Conf. 10 Decision on the appointment of experts for the purpose of a medical examination pursuant to rules 113 and 135 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and related matters , 24 September 2025, ICC-01/21- 01/25-279-Conf (a public redacted version registered on 16 October 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-279-Red) (hereinafter: “Decision of 24 September 2025”) . 11 Urgent Request for Interim Release , ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Conf-Exp (a public redacted version registered on the same day, ICC-01/21-01/25-150-Red), with confidential and ex parte Annexes A, B and C; Renewed Request for Interim Release , ICC-01/21-01/25-231-Conf (a public redacted version registered on 19 August 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-231-Red), with confidential Annexes A, B and C. 12 Decision on the Defence’s ‘Urgent Request for Interim Release’ and ‘Renewed Request for Interim Release’ , ICC-01/21-01/25-282-Conf (a public redacted version registered on 10 October 2025, ICC- 01/21-01/25-282-Red). 13 Notice of Appeal against ICC-01/21-01/25-282-Conf , 3 October 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-287-Conf (a public redacted version registered on 1 December 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-287-Red). 14 Judgment on the appeal of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled “Decision on the Defence’s ‘Urgent Request for Interim Release’ and ‘Renewed Request for Interim Release’” , ICC-01/21-01/25-326-Conf (OA2) (a public redacted version registered on the same day, ICC-01/21-01/25-326-Red (OA2)).

No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 5/29

15

On 5 December 2025, pursuant to an order to that effect, the Registry

transmitted to the Pre-Trial Chamber the joint and individual reports of the Panel

16

(hereinafter: “Panel’s Reports”) .

On the same day, the Pre-Trial Chamber issued, by way of email, an order to

submit observations on Mr Duterte’s detention (hereinafter: “Order of 5 December

17

2025”) .

18

On 7 January 2026, following a request by the Defence, the Pre-Trial Chamber

issued a decision, rejecting the request for the Panel to issue an additional report on the

impact of Mr Duterte’s health condition on the risk factors under article 58(1)(b) of the

19

Statute (hereinafter: “Decision of 7 January 2026”) .

On 9 January 2026, pursuant to the Order of 5 December 2025, the Defence

submitted its observations on Mr Duterte’s detention (hereinafter: “Defence’s

20

Observations of 9 January 2026”) . In support of its argument concerning Mr Duterte’s

health condition in relation to the risks under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute, the Defence

15 Decision on the ‘Defence Request for the Disqualification of [REDACTED] ’ and related matters , 17 October 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-303-Conf (a public redacted version registered on 14 November 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-303-Red), para. 24. See also Decision on the ‘Urgent Defence Request to Disqualify [REDACTED] ’ and related matters , 3 November 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-316-Conf (a public redacted version registered on 14 November 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-316-Red), para. 19. 16 Registry Transmission of the Panel of Experts’ Joint and Individual Reports , 5 December 2025, ICC- 01/21-01/25-327-Conf (a public redacted version dated 18 December 2025 and registered on 19 December 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-327-Red), with confidential Annexes I-IV. 17 Impugned Decision , para. 6, referring to Email from the Pre-Trial Chambre on 5 December 2025 at 11:25, entitled “Order to submit observations on Mr Duterte’s detention”. 18 Defence Request for an Expert Report on Article 58(1)(b) Risk Factors , 19 December 2025, ICC- 01/21-01/25-342 (hereinafter: “Defence’s Request of 19 December 2025”) . See also Prosecution’s response to “Defence Request for an Expert Report on Article 58(1)(b) Risk Factors”, ICC -01/21-01/25- 342 , 23 December 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-345-Conf (a public redacted version registered on the same day, ICC-01/21-01/25-345-Red). 19 Decision on the ‘Defence Request for an Expert Report on Article 58(1)(b) Risk Factors’ , ICC-01/21- 01/25-350. 20 Defence Observations on the First Review of Pre-Trial Detention , ICC-01/21-01/25-351-Conf (a public redacted version registered on the same day, ICC-01/21-01/25-351-Red), with confidential Annex A ( “Assessment of Alleged Risks Attributed to the Accused, authored by the Defence medical experts, 30 December 2025”, ICC-01/21-01/25-351-Conf-AnxA (hereinafter: “Defence’s Report”) ) and confidential Annex B ( “Letter from the State Party, dated 1 December 2025”, ICC-01/21-01/25-351- Conf-AnxB). See also Prosecutor’s observations on the review of the pre -trial detention of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte , 7 January 2026, ICC-01/21-01/25-349-Conf (a public redacted version registered on 8 January 2026, ICC-01/21-01/25-349-Red); Victims’ Observations on the Review of Mr Duterte’s Pre-Trial Detention pursuant to Rule 118(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence , 7 January 2026, ICC-01/21-01/25-348.

No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 6/29

submitted the Defence’s Report, a medical report authored by the external medical

21 practitioners selected by the Defence, in an annex to the observations.

22 On 26 January 2026, the Pre-Trial Chamber issued the Impugned Decision.

On 28 January 2026, the Defence filed a notice of appeal against the Impugned

23 Decision, pursuant to article 82(1)(b) of the Statute.

24 On 5 February 2026, following an order of the Appeals Chamber, the Defence

submitted its appeal brief, raising one ground of appeal against the Impugned Decision

25 (hereinafter: “Appeal Brief”) .

On 12 February 2026, the Prosecutor filed his response to the Appeal Brief

26 (hereinafter: “Prosecutor’s Response”) .

On the same day, the Common Legal Representatives of the Victims (hereinafter:

“ C LRVs”) filed their observations on the Appeal Brief (hereinafter: “ CLRVs ’

27 Response”) .

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In the present appeal, the Defence alleges errors of law and of fact, as well as

abuse of discretion.

With respect to errors of law, the Appeals Chamber has previously held that it

will not defer to the relevant Chamber’s interpretation of the law, but will arrive at its own conclusions as to the appropriate law and determine whether or not the 28 first instance Chamber misinterpreted the law.

21 Defence’s Report . 22 Impugned Decision . 23 Notice of Appeal against Decision ICC-01/21-01/25-357-Conf , ICC-01/21-01/25-360. 24 Order on the conduct of the proceedings , 29 January 2026, ICC-01/21-01/25-362 (OA4). 25 Appeal Brief on the First Review of the Detention of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte , ICC-01/21-01/25-366. 26 Prosecution’s response to “Appeal Brief on the First Review of the Detention of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte” (ICC-01/21-01/25-366) , ICC-01/21-01/25-374-Conf (a public redacted version registered on the same day, ICC-01/21-01/25-374-Red). 27 Victims’ Response to the Defence Appeal against the “Decision on the review of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s detention” , ICC-01/21-01/25-373-Conf (a public redacted version registered on 13 February 2026, ICC-01/21-01/25-373-Red). 28 See Duterte OA2 Judgment , para. 17 and cited jurisprudence therein.

No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 7/29

If the relevant chamber committed such an error, the Appeals Chamber will only 29 intervene if the error materially affected the decision impugned on appeal. A decision is “materially affected by an error of law” if the chamber “would have rendered a [decision] that is substantially different from the decision that was affected by the error, 30 if it had not made the error”.

Regarding alleged errors of fact, the Appeals Chamber has held in the context of an appeal against a decision concerning interim release that

the Appeals Chamber will not disturb a Pre- Trial or Trial Chamber’s evaluation of the facts just because the Appeals Chamber might have come to a different conclusion. It will interfere only in the case where it cannot discern how the Chamber’s conclusion could have reasonably been reached from the evidence before it. The Appeals Chamber applies a standard of reasonableness in assessing an alleged error of fact in appeals pursuant to article 82 of the Statute, thereby 31 according a margin of deference to the Trial Chamber’s findings.

As regards alleged errors in a chamber’s exercise of its discretion, the Appeals Chamber has stated that:

[A]n abuse of discretion occurs when the impugned decision is so unfair or unreasonable as to “force the conclusion that the Chamber failed to exercise its discretion judiciously”. The Appeals Chamber will also consider whether the first instance Chamber gave weight to extraneous or irrelevant considerations or failed to give weight or sufficient weight to relevant considerations in 32 exercising its discretion.

The above standard of review will guide the analysis of the Appeals Chamber.

29 The Prosecutor v. Maxime Jeoffroy Eli Mokom Gawaka , Judgment on the appeal of Maxime Jeoffroy Eli Mokom Gawaka against the decision of Pre- Trial Chamber II of 19 August 2022 entitled “Decision on legal representation further to the Appeals Chamber’s judgment of 19 July 2022” , 19 December 2022, ICC-01/14-01/22-124- Red (OA3) (hereinafter: “ Mokom OA3 Judgment”), para. 20 and cited jurisprudence therein. 30 Mokom OA3 Judgment , para. 20 and cited jurisprudence therein. 31 Duterte OA2 Judgment , para. 18 and cited jurisprudence therein. 32 Duterte OA2 Judgment , para. 19 and cited jurisprudence therein.

No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 8/29

IV. MERITS

A. Relevant procedural background

1 Relevant orders and decisions of the Pre-Trial Chamber 33 Having received the relevant submissions of the parties and participants, as well 34 as two reports provided by the external medical practitioners selected by the Defence, the Pre-Trial Chamber, by majority, found in the Order of 8 September 2025 that “ further medical examination by independent experts pursuant to rules 113 and 135 of 35 the Rules [was] now required”. The Pre-Trial Chamber instructed the Registry as follows:

The Registry shall prepare [a shortlist of experts] taking into account all documents currently available on the record that are relevant to the issue at hand, and in consultation with the Defence and the Prosecution. In addition, in order to ensure the shortlisted experts’ impartiality and neutrality, individuals who have already been engaged in connection with the present case on behalf of a party 36 shall not be included in the Registry’s shortlist .

After having received observations of the Defence, the Prosecutor and the OPCV 37 on the Registry’s Shortlist of Medical Experts, the Pre-Trial Chamber issued the Decision of 24 September 2025, instructing that “in order to maintain the impartiality of the Panel, the parties and participants shall refrain from any contact with the 38 appointed experts”. In the same vein, the Pre-Trial Chamber noted as follows:

[T]he Chamber clarifies that, in appointing experts, it will only consider those who are included in the Registry’s Shortlist and have indicated their availability for the assignment. Emphasising the need ‘to ensure the shortlisted experts’ impartiality and neutrality’, the 8 September 2025 Order did not invite or instruct the parties and participants to indicate additional experts for appointment: the Chamber will therefore disregard the suggestions made in that regard by the Prosecution and the Defence, and instructs the Registry not to further act on their 39 basis.

33 See Order of 8 September 2025 , paras 7, 11-15. 34 Defence Submission of Medical Reports, 18 July 2025, ICC-01/21-01/25-199-Conf, with confidential Annexes A, B and C (hereinafter: “Defence’s Submission of 18 July 2025”) . 35 Order of 8 September 2025 , para. 23. 36 Order of 8 September 2025 , para. 25 (emphasis added). 37 See Decision of 24 September 2025 , paras 8-10. 38 Decision of 24 September 2025 , para. 22. 39 Decision of 24 September 2025 , para. 12 (footnotes omitted).

No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 9/29

The Pre-Trial Chamber also instructed the Panel to provide an assessment on the following issues:

(i) whether and, if so, at what level Mr Duterte suffers from any medical condition which might have an effect on his ability to follow and take part in the ongoing pre-trial proceedings, including the confirmation of charges hearing; and

(ii) whether any special measures or adjustments are recommended to address any medical condition of Mr Duterte, also in light of any prognosis, during the 40 pre-trial proceedings, including the confirmation of charges hearing.

Following a request by the Defence for the Panel to issue an additional report “focu[s]ing on whether Mr Duterte’s current cognitive state would permit him to flee 41 the ongoing judicial proceedings, to intimidate witnesses, or to commit crimes”, the 42 Pre-Trial Chamber issued the Decision of 7 January 2026, rejecting the Defence’s request on the basis that the Panel had already provided an “independent assessment on 43 Mr Duterte’s medical condition”. The Pre-Trial Chamber also found that “any additional expert report is neither appropriate nor necessary for its adjudication”, noting that “whether the risks under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute identified by the Chamber in the [Initial Decision on Detention] continue to exist is a legal determination to be 44 made by the Chamber”. Lastly, the Pre-Trial Chamber noted that the Defence could

rely upon the Panel’s findings on Mr Duterte’s health condition in its observations with 45 respect to the review of Mr Duterte’s detention.

2 Duterte OA2 Judgment 46 The Appeals Chamber confirmed the Initial Decision on Detention. In particular, in relation to the issue of Mr Duterte’s health condition, the Appeals

Chamber recalled that “there is no provision in the Court’s legal texts that specifically provides for the interim or conditional release of a detained person on health 47 grounds”, but the medical condition of a detained person may have an effect on the

40 Decision of 24 September 2025 , para. 17. 41 Defence’s Request of 19 December 2025 . 42 Decision of 7 January 2026 . 43 Decision of 7 January 2026 , para. 8. 44 Decision of 7 January 2026 , para. 9. 45 Decision of 7 January 2026 , para. 8. 46 Duterte OA2 Judgment , para. 130, p. 3. 47 Duterte OA2 Judgment , para. 85, referring to Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Laurent Koudou Gbagbo , Judgment on the appeal of Mr Laurent Koudou Gbagbo against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 13 July 2012 entitled “Decision on the ‘Requête de la Défense demandant la mise en liberté

No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 10/29

risks under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute, or may be a reason for a pre-trial chamber to 48 grant interim release with conditions.

The Appeals Chamber further considered, inter alia , that, in challenging the Pre-Trial Chamber ’s findings with respect to the question of whether Mr Duterte ’s health condition could mitigate the risks identified under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute, the Defence provided “ its own reading of the determinations made in the medical reports [relied upon by the Defence] and their purported mitigating impact on the risks 49 identified” , and that “[w]ithout more, these arguments merely express[ed] a disagreement with the Pre- Trial Chamber’s assessment of Mr Duterte health condition 50 for the purpose of its examination of the risk under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute” . In this regard, the Appeals Chamber also found that the Pre-Trial Chamber had clearly considered whether the information on Mr Duterte’s alleged health situation could 51 mitigate the risks identified under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute, and that it was not apparent from the Initial Decision on Detention, or the arguments presented by the Defence, that the Pre- Trial Chamber’s finding that the identified risks “were not mitigated by Mr Duterte’s purported condition and also could not be mitigated by any 52 conditions imposed on release ” was unreasonable.

Lastly, in rejecting all grounds of appeal raised by the Defence, the Appeals Chamber noted that the Pre-Trial Chamber ’s conclusions in relation to the risks enumerated in article 58(1)(b) of the Statute as espoused in the Initial Decision on 53 Detention were based on “a comprehensive assessment of the information before it” .

B. Relevant parts of the Impugned Decision

The Pre-Trial Chamber took note of the Defence ’s submission that Mr Duterte’s health condition, in particular his cognitive deficiencies, constituted a new fact, with respect to the risks identified in the Initial Decision on Detention under article 58(1)(b)

provisoire du president Gbagbo’” , 26 October 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-278-Conf (OA) (a public redacted version was registered on the same day, ICC-02/11-01/11-278-Red (OA) ) (hereinafter: “ Gbagbo OA Judgment”) , para. 86. 48 Duterte OA2 Judgment , para. 85, referring to Gbagbo OA Judgment , para. 87. 49 Duterte OA2 Judgment , para. 87. 50 Duterte OA2 Judgment , para. 87. 51 Duterte OA2 Judgment , para. 122. 52 Duterte OA2 Judgment , para. 127. 53 Duterte OA2 Judgment , para. 129. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 11/29

54 of the Statute, which must be considered for the review of his detention. It also noted that the Defence did not raise any change in the circumstances in respect of 55 Mr Duterte’s detention, aside from the alleged cognitive impairment of Mr Duterte.

As regards the issue of Mr Duterte’s health condition, including his alleged cognitive impairment, the Pre-Trial Chamber recalled that this issue “ had already been raised by the Defence at the time of the issuance of the [Initial Decision on Detention]”, and that it duly considered the issue of Mr Duterte’s health condition in that decision “ as part of its assessment regarding possible mitigating factors of the identified risks 56 under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute ” . The Pre-Trial Chamber further noted that since the issuance of the Initial Decision on Detention, it received, on 5 December 2025, the Panel’s Reports based on the Panel’s medical examination of Mr Duterte, pursuant to 57 rules 113 and 135 of the Rules. The Pre-Trial Chamber considered that “the Panel’s Reports do constitute a new fact as to Mr Duterte’s health condition which may be taken 58 into consideration for the present review of Mr Duterte’s detention”.

In respect of the Panel’s Reports, while taking into account the Panel ’s findings that “Mr Duterte is ‘ [REDACTED] ’” , and “ [REDACTED] ”, the Pre-Trial Chamber noted that “none of the experts in the Panel [made] a positive diagnosis of 59 [REDACTED] ”. The Pre- Trial Chamber further noted that “the Court -appointed forensic psychiatrist [REDACTED] ”, and that it “ does not consider [the alleged [REDACTED] issue] to be relevant to determine whether the risks under 60 article 58(1)(b) of the Statute continue to exist ” . The Pre-Trial Chamber concluded that “the Panel’s Reports, and the information contained therein, do not therefore amount to a changed or new fact or circumstance that would warrant modifying the 61 [Initial Decision on Detention] within the meaning of article 60(3) of the Statute ”.

I n relation to the Defence’s Report, the Pre-Trial Chamber noted as follows:

54 Impugned Decision , para. 22. 55 Impugned Decision , para. 22. 56 Impugned Decision , para. 23. 57 Impugned Decision , para. 23. 58 Impugned Decision , para. 23. 59 Impugned Decision , para. 27. 60 Impugned Decision , para. 29. 61 Impugned Decision , para. 30. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 12/29

[A]s made abundantly clear in prior decisions, with a view to preserving the fairness of the proceedings, the Chamber shall not rely on medical reports provided by a party to the proceedings; neither shall the Chamber rely on the related Defence’s own interpretation or conclusions, since the Defence lacks the requisite expertise and is a party to the proceedings. Therefore, the Chamber will not consider the new medical report provided as Annex A to the Defence’s Observations, nor the related arguments in such observations, for the purposes of the present review of detention. Furthermore, the Chamber notes that the Defence’s Observations are largely dedicated to providing the Defence’s own views on Mr Duterte’s health condition, and previous Chamber’s decisions, be they related or unrelated to the matter of the review of detention. Since the present instance is not the appropriate venue for such submissions, the Chamber will 62 disregard them.

C. Summary of the submissions

1 Defence’s submissions The Defence submits that the Pre-Trial Chamber erred in fact and in law, and “failed to exercise appropriate discretion”, when it disregarded the Defence’s Report 63 on the basis that it had emanated from a party to the proceedings. According to the Defence, the errors of the Pre-Trial Chamber materially affected the Impugned Decision as “Mr Duterte’s continued pre -trial detention would, otherwise, have been 64 unjustified ” . As a result, the Defence requests that the Appeals Chamber reverse the 65 Impugned Decision and order the immediate release of Mr Duterte.

In support of its submission, the Defence first argues that the Defence’s Report constitutes a new fact in respect of Mr Duterte’s health condition, and therefore a 66 changed circumstance, within the meaning of article 60(3) of the Statute. It contends that, given that the question of interim release is factually and legally distinct from the 67 issue of fitness to stand trial, the Defence’s Report is “highly relevant to the assessment of Mr Duterte’s continuing detention” since it assessed Mr Duterte’s health condition and was prepared for the specific purpose of evaluating his ability “ to actuate 68 the risks set out in [a]rticle 58(1)(b) [of the Statute ]” . According to the Defence, the Defence’s Report substantiates that Mr Duterte’s health condition undermines his

62 Impugned Decision , para. 24 (footnotes omitted). 63 Appeal Brief , paras 1, 15, 23, 33. 64 Appeal Brief , paras 22, 30, 37. 65 Appeal Brief , paras 4, 21, 37. 66 Appeal Brief , paras 15-22. 67 Appeal Brief , paras 20-21; see also para. 33. 68 Appeal Brief , paras 15-16.

No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 13/29

ability to abscond, to threaten witnesses or the investigation and to continue the 69 commission of offences. The Defence submits that as such, and in light of “the intent 70 and purpose of periodic review under [a]rticle 60(3)”, as well as “ the jurisprudence of this Court [which] recognises that changed circumstances include the effect of a detainee’s medical condition on the statutory risks under [a]rticle 58(1)(b) ” , the 71 Pre- Trial Chamber was obliged to consider the Defence’s Report .

Second, the Defence avers that the Defence’s Report is relevant “medical evidence supplied by leading professionals in good standing” and that the Pre-Trial Chamber erred by refusing to engage with its content and the related Defence’s 72 arguments, solely on the basis that it was tendered by a party to the proceedings. It contends that the Pre- Trial Chamber was required to examine the Defence’s Report and assess its probative value, since “[e]vidence cannot be rendered inadmissible merely by virtue of the identity of its submitting party” , and the Court’s jurisprudence favours the 73 admission of all evidence that is prima facie relevant.

Lastly, the Defence submits that the Pre- Trial Chamber’s dismissal of the Defence’s Report undermines the principle of equality of arms and the fairness of the 74 proceedings, and deprives Mr Duterte of his right to a reasoned determination.

2 Prosecutor ’s submissions The Prosecutor requests that the Appeals Chamber dismiss the appeal, as the Defence disregards the Pre- Trial Chamber’s relevant findings and has failed to establish any error of the Pre-Trial Chamber which would have materially impacted the outcome 75 of the Impugned Decision.

The Prosecutor first submits that the Pre-Trial Chamber was “ entitled not to consider or rely on the Defence’s Report” and that the Pre- Trial Chamber’s “ reasons for rejecting the report are consistent with its discretion to rule on the admissibility of

69 Appeal Brief , paras 16, 26-29. 70 Appeal Brief , para. 21. 71 Appeal Brief , para. 17. 72 Appeal Brief , paras 23, 32. 73 Appeal Brief , paras 24-25. 74 Appeal Brief , paras 23-25, 34. 75 Prosecutor’s Response , paras 3, 7, 26, 31-32. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 14/29

any evidence under article 69(4) of the Statute as well as the free evaluation of evidence 76 under rule 63(2) of the R ules” .

In this regard, the Prosecutor argues that the Pre-Trial Chamber, in any event, 77 considered the impact of the Defence’s Report on the fairness of the proceedings, assessed the probative value of the Defence’s Report , pursuant to rule 63(2) of the 78 79 Rules, and found that its probative value would not outweigh the fairness concerns.

Regarding the impact on the fairness of the proceedings, the Prosecutor avers that the Pre- Trial Chamber considered such impact of the Defence’s Report, given that, as recalled in the Impugned Decision, the Pre-Trial Chamber has emphasised that it would not rely on medical reports adduced by a party in order to preserve the fairness of the proceedings, in its previous decisions, namely the Order of 8 September 2025 and the 80 Decision of 24 September 2025. Concerning the probative value of the Defence’s Report, the Prosecutor first points out that the Defence’s filing of the Defence’s Report on 9 January 2026, two days after the Decision of 7 January 2026, disregards the 81 Pre- Trial Chamber’s rulings in said decision. He further contends that the Defence’s R eport “ contains exactly the same subject matter ” as the reports submitted by the Defence which the Pre-Trial Chamber previously rejected in the Decision of 7 January 82 2026, and that the Defence appears to acknowledge the probative value of the Panel’s Reports as it relied upon them extensively in the Defence’s Observations of 9 January 83 2026.

Second, the Prosecutor submits that as “it was not an error for the Pre -Trial Chamber to reject the Defence’s Report, it follows that the [Pre-Trial Chamber] did not err in failing to treat the Defence[‘s] Report as a new fact or changed circumstances 84 within the meaning of article 60(3) of the Statute ” . According to the Prosecutor, the Defence’s Report , in any event, does not contain “new facts” requiring an amendment

76 Prosecutor’s Response , paras 8-10, 16. 77 Prosecutor’s Response , paras 11-12. 78 Prosecutor’s Response , paras 13-14. 79 Prosecutor’s Response , paras 15-16. 80 Prosecutor’s Response , paras 11-12, referring to Impugned Decision , para. 24. 81 Prosecutor’s Response , paras 13-14. 82 Prosecutor’s Response , para. 13, referring to Defence’s Report, p. 2. 83 Prosecutor’s Response , para. 13, referring to Defence’s Observations of 9 January 2026 , paras 6-7, 12-14. 84 Prosecutor’s Response , para. 17. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 15/29

85 of the Initial Decision on Detention, because: (i) the medical practitioners 86 commissioned by the Defence did not conduct a new examination of Mr Duterte; and (ii) the Defence’s Report relies upon the Panel’s Reports for updated information with respect to Mr Duterte’s health condition and, thus, does not contain any new 87 information in this regard. The Prosecutor argues that, as the Pre-Trial Chamber correctly found, t he Panel’s Reports, therefore, contain “ the most current reliable 88 information ” on the matter, and it is the Panel’s R eports that constitute “ a new fact as to Mr Duterte’s health condition which may be taken into consideration in the present 89 review of Mr Duterte’s detention”.

Third, the Prosecutor submits that the Defence merely repeats its argument that the rejection of the Defence’s Report is an error and fails to raise any error of law or fact in asserting that the Defence’s Report “is the only fact capable of mitigating the risks previously identified” by the Pre -Trial Chamber under article 58(1)(b) of the 90 Statute.

Lastly, the Prosecutor submits that, even if the Appeals Chamber were to find that the Pre-Trial Chamber committed an error of law in refusing to rely up on the Defence’s 91 Report, such error did not materially affect the Impugned Decision. He avers that the Defence’s R eport: (i) could not have been afforded any probative value that would alter the assessment on Mr Duterte’s health condition and the risks under article 58(1)(b) of 92 the Statute; and (ii) opines on issues that are outside the areas and scope of expertise 93 of its authors and are a matter for a legal determination by the Pre-Trial Chamber. The Prosecutor adds that “the reasoning of the authors is […] a bstract and 94 decontextualised” , and that the sources of the Defence’s Report are “problematic” as its authors “do not appear to have been privy to the vast evidence […] which the

85 Prosecutor’s Response , para. 18. 86 Prosecutor’s Response , para. 19. 87 Prosecutor’s Response , para. 20. 88 Prosecutor’s Response , para. 20. 89 Prosecutor’s Response , para. 21, referring to Impugned Decision , para. 23. 90 Prosecutor’s Response , paras 23-24. 91 Prosecutor’s Response , paras 26-30. 92 Prosecutor’s Response , para. 26. 93 Prosecutor’s Response , para. 27. 94 Prosecutor’s Response , para. 28. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 16/29

[Pre-Trial] Chamber and Appeals Chamber relied upon to find that Mr Duterte poses a 95 risk under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute”.

3 Victims ’ observations 96 The CLRVs request that the Appeals Chamber dismiss the appeal in its entirety. In their view, the Defence repeats its previously unsuccessful arguments, merely disagrees with the Pre- Trial Chamber’s determinations, and challenges an earlier ruling of the Pre-Trial Chamber for which it had not sought leave to appeal, without 97 demonstrating a discernible error in the Impugned Decision.

The CLRVs first submit that, despite the Decision of 7 January 2026, the Defence “unilaterally” filed the Defence’s Report , “ disregard[ing] the [Pre- Trial] Chamber’s reasoning on the lack of appropriateness to engage medical professionals on this legal 98 question [of article 58(1)(b) risk factors]” . They “ reject the [ Defence’s ] distorted presentation of relevancy of the [Defence’s Report ] ” and oppose the Defence’s 99 argument that the Pre-Trial Chamber was obliged to consider the report. According to the CLRVs, “ the Defence is dissatisfied with the Chamber’s findings on Mr Duterte’s fitness to participate in the pre-trial proceedings; a finding [the Defence] continues to 100 assail from all possible angles ” .

In this regard, the CLRVs argue that “the terms of reference for the [Defence’s Report] overstepped the sphere of medical expertise by posing entirely legal questions to party- appointed medical professionals”, and that the Defence erroneously 101 characterises the Defence’s Report as evidence. They also aver that the conclusions set out in the Defence’s Report , in any event, do not support the “exaggerated claims 102 of infirmness put forth by the Defence”. In this vein, the CLRVs submit that the Defence’s contentions concerning the Defence’s Report, in particular : (i) that “the only practicable basis for modification under [a]rticle 60(3) is evidence of a material change, such as the accused’s health”; (ii) that the Panel’s Report s are “outdated”; and (i ii) that

95 Prosecutor’s Response , paras 29-30. 96 CLRVs’ Response , para. 3. 97 CLRVs’ Response , paras 2-3, 13-14, 27-28, 30. 98 CLRVs’ Response , para. 14. 99 CLRVs’ Response , para. 17. 100 CLRVs’ Response , para. 17. 101 CLRVs’ Response , paras 18-19. 102 CLRVs’ Response , para. 18. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 17/29

the Pre- Trial Chamber did not provide a reasoned decision for dismissing the Defence’s 103 Report, are “misguided” and not “rooted in actual fact” .

Lastly, the CLRVs submit that the Defence is unable to demonstrate any error 104 that would have materially affected the outcome of the Impugned Decision. The CLRVs contend that the Pre- Trial Chamber’s determination not to rely upon the Defence’s Report cannot be “elevated to a decisive factor in the Impugned Decision” since Mr Duterte’s medical condition and the reports are but one of the factors on which the Pre- Trial Chamber’s decision to maintain Mr Duterte’s pre -trial detention is 105 founded.

D. Determination by the Appeals Chamber

The Defence submits that the Pre-Trial Chamber, in its assessment under article 60(3) of the Statute, committed errors of law and of fact, and abused its discretion, by refusing to consider the Defence ’s Report , solely on the basis that it was 106 submitted by a party to the proceedings. The Defence argues that the report constitutes: (i) a new fact and a changed circumstance within the meaning of 107 article 60(3) of the Statute; and (ii) relevant expert evidence of which the Pre-Trial 108 Chamber was obliged to assess the content. As such, it avers that the Pre-Trial Chamber’s dismissal of the Defence’s Report infringes upon Mr Duterte’s right to a 109 reasoned decision and his fair trial rights. The Appeals Chamber will examine each argument of the Defence in turn below.

1 Relevant legal framework According to article 60(3) of the Statute, a pre- trial chamber of the Court “shall periodically review its ruling on the release or detention of the person, and may do so at any time on the request of the Prosecutor or the person”, and “[u]pon such review, […] may modify its ruling as to detention, release or conditions of release, if it is satisfied that changed circumstances so require”. Rule 118 (2) of the Rules further

103 CLRVs’ Response , paras 19-21. 104 CLRVs’ Response , para. 25. 105 CLRVs’ Response , paras 24-25, 30. 106 Appeal Brief , paras 1, 10, 23. 107 Appeal Brief , paras 15-17, 19, 21-22. 108 Appeal Brief , paras 23-30, 32-33. 109 Appeal Brief , paras 23-25, 34. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 18/29

provides that the pre- trial chamber “shall review its ruling on the release or detention of a person in accordance with article 60, paragraph 3, at least every 120 days and may do so at any time on the request of the person or the Prosecutor”.

In this context, the Appeals Chamber recalls that “the scope of the review carried out in reaching a decision under article 60(3) is potentially much more limited than that 110 to be carried out in reaching a decision under article 60(2) of the Statute”. The pre- trial chamber “does not have to enter findings on the circumstances already decided upon in the ruling on detention” and does not have to “entertain submissions by the detained person that merely repeat arguments that the Chamber has already addressed 111 in p revious decisions”. Ultimately, when assessing whether changed circumstances warrant an alteration of the ruling on detention, it is for the first instance chamber to satisfy itself “that the conditions under article 58(1) of the Statute, as required by 112 article 60(2) of the Statute, continue to be met”.

2 Preliminary issues The Appeals Chamber notes that the Defence raises, for the first time on appeal, arguments in relation to the Pre- Trial Chamber’s determination that it would not rely upon any reports provided by individuals who had been engaged in connection with the present case on behalf of a party. The Defence did not raise this issue before the Pre-Trial Chamber either (i) when the Pre-Trial Chamber, in the Order of 8 September 2025, found that “in order to ensure the shortlisted experts’ impartiality and neutrality, individuals who have already been engaged in connection with the present case on 113 behalf of a party shall not be included in the Registry’s shortlist” , or (ii) when the

110 Gbagbo OA Judgment , para. 24; Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo , Judgment on the appeal of Mr Laurent Gbagbo against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 11 July 2013 entitled “Third decision on the review of Laurent Gbagbo’s detention pursuant to article 60(3) of the Rome Statute” , 29 October 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-548- Red (OA4) (hereinafter: “ Gbagbo OA4 Judgment”) , para. 52. 111 Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo , Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against the decision of Trial Chamber III of 28 July 2010 entitled “Decision on the review of the detention of Mr Jean -Pierre Bemba Gombo pursuant to Rule 118(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence” , 19 November 2019, ICC-01/05-01/08-1019 (OA4) (hereinafter: “ Bemba OA4 Judgment”), para. 53; Gbagbo OA4 Judgment , para. 112; Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Mahamat Said Abdel Kani , Judgment on the appeal of Mr Mahamat Said Abdel Kani against the decision of Trial Chamber VI entitled “First review of the detention of Mr Mahamat Said Abdel Kani” , 23 August 2022, ICC-01/14-01/21- 460 (OA4) (hereinafter: “ Said OA4 Judgment”), para. 36. 112 Bemba OA4 Judgment , para. 52. 113 Order of 8 September 2025 , para. 25. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 19/29

Pre-Trial Chamber, in the Decision of 24 September 2025, emphasised that it would disregard the suggestions made by the parties with respect to additional experts for appointment, considering the need to ensure the shortlisted experts’ impartiality and 114 neutrality.

In the view of the Appeals Chamber, the Defence could have reasonably raised its concerns in the proceedings before the Pre-Trial Chamber. However, since the Defence did not do so, the Pre-Trial Chamber did not have an opportunity to consider the Defence’s arguments in this respect and make a finding thereupon. Given the nature of these arguments, the Appeals Chamber finds that, if it were to examine them, this would exceed the scope of its appellate review, as there is no specific finding of the 115 Pre-Trial Chamber to review in this regard.

In the same vein, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Defence appears to challenge the Pre- Trial Chamber’s rejection , in the Decision of 7 January 2026, of the Defence’s request that the Panel issue an additional report on Mr Duterte’s ability to 116 actualise the risks under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute. This decision is not under review in the present appeal. As a result , the Defence’s arguments in this regard are dismissed.

Lastly, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Defence raises arguments concerning 117 the Initial Decision on Detention, which the Appeals Chamber has unanimously 118 confirmed in the Duterte OA2 Judgment. The Appeals Chamber finds that such a 119 practice is not an appropriate use of judicial time and resources. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber will not entertain the Defence’s arguments in this respect.

114 Decision of 24 September 2025 , para. 12. 115 See Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen , Judgment on the appeal of Mr Dominic Ongwen against the decision of Trial Chamber IX of 28 February 2024 entitled “Reparations Order” , 7 April 2025, ICC-02/04-01/15-2108 (A3), paras 87, 225, referring to , inter alia , Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen , Judgment on the appeal of Mr Dominic Ongwen against the decision of Trial Chamber IX of 6 May 2021 entitled “Sentence” , 15 December 2022, ICC-02/04-01/15-2023 (A2), para. 108; Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen , Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre- Trial Chamber II entitled “Decision Setting the Regime for Evidence Disclosure and Other Related Matters” , 17 June 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-251 (OA3), para. 45. 116 See Appeal Brief , paras 35-36. 117 See Appeal Brief , paras 18-21. 118 See Duterte OA2 Judgment , para. 130, p. 3. 119 See Said OA4 Judgment , para. 67. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 20/29

3 Whether the Defence’s Report constitutes a new fact and changed circumstance within the meaning of article 60(3) of the Statute Turning to the merits, t he Appeals Chamber notes the Defence’s contention that the Defence’s Report constitutes a new fact , and therefore a changed circumstance, 120 within the meaning of article 60(3) of the Statute. In support of its submission, the Defence argues that the submission of the Defence’s Report postdates the Pre -Trial 121 Chamber’s assessment of the Panel’s Reports.

The Appeals Chamber recalls that:

The passage of time alone does not per se lead to the conclusion that circumstances have changed in favour of interim release in the context of a review under article 60(3) of the Statute. Rather, this must be decided in the context of 122 the specific circumstances in each case. In the circumstances of the instant case, the Appeals Chamber notes that, other than arguing in the abstract that “ [h]ealth, by its very nature, is not static, and organic conditions such as those from which Mr Duterte suffers are progressive and 123 degenerative” , the Defence has not indicated with specificity why the passage of “ four months ” between the issuance of the Initial Decision on Detention and the filing of the Defence’s Report leads to the conclusion that the Defence’s Report constitutes a “more recent opinion” , and thus a new fact, in respect of Mr Duterte’s health condition , in comparison to the information provided in the Panel’s Reports which was submitted 124 before the Pre-Trial Chamber on 5 December 2025.

In this regard, the Appeals Chamber takes note of the submissions of the Prosecutor and the CLRVs that the Defence’s Report does not include any new information concerning Mr Duterte’s health condition since the two medical practitioners selected by the Defence did not conduct any new examination of 125 Mr Duterte. The Appeals Chamber observes that the Defence has not explained why or how the Defence’s Report, without any examination of Mr Duterte, may provide more updated or reliable information concerning Mr Duterte’s health condition than

120 Appeal Brief , paras 15-22. 121 Appeal Brief , para. 19. 122 Said OA4 Judgment , paras 1, 40. 123 Appeal Brief , para. 19. 124 See Appeal Brief , para. 21. 125 See Prosecutor’s Response , paras 13, 18-20. See also CLRVs’ Response , paras 20-21. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 21/29

that provided in the Panel’s Reports. Indeed, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Defence’s Report relies upon the information already provided in the Panel’s Reports with respect to Mr Duterte’s health condition and explicitly acknowledges that “[n]o independent clinical re-examination was conducted for the purpose of this specific risk 126 assessment”. Furthermore, the Defence has not substantiated as to how “the Court’s truth- seeking function” was “destablis[ed]” by the Pre - Trial Chamber’s determination 127 not to rely upon the Defence’s Report.

In light of the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Defence has failed to establish any errors of the Pre- Trial Chamber in relying upon the Panel’s Reports which provide the most updated medical information in respect of Mr Duterte’s health 128 condition. Consequently, and contrary to the Defence’s argument, the Appeals Chamber finds no inconsistency between the Pre- Trial Chamber’s rejection of the Defence’s Report and the Pre- Trial Chamber’s finding that while the Panel’s Reports constitute a new fact as to Mr Duterte’s health condition, the Panel’s Reports and the information therein do not amount to a new fact or changed circumstance that would 129 warrant modifying the Initial Decision on Detention under article 60(3) of the Statute. Accordingly, the Defence’s arguments in this regard are rejected.

4 Whether the Defence’s Report constitutes expert evidence of which the Pre-Trial Chamber was obliged to assess the content The Defence submits that the Defence’s Report is pertinent expert evidence and, as such, the Pre-Trial Chamber was required to examine its content in its assessment 130 under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute. The Appeals Chamber considers that the Defence’s arguments in this regard are premised on its misunderstanding of the legal framework of the Court concerning a pre-trial ch amber’s review, pursuant to article 60(3) of the Statute. The Defence appears to conflate two discrete issues, namely, on the one hand, the Pre- Trial Chamber’s assessment of Mr Duterte’s health condition, and, on the other hand, the Pre- Trial Chamber’s determination in respect of the risk factors under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute set out in the Initial Decision on

126 Defence’s Report, p. 2. 127 See Appeal Brief , para. 25. 128 See Appeal Brief , para. 15. 129 See Impugned Decision , paras 23, 30. 130 Appeal Brief , paras 21, 23-29, 32-33. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 22/29

Detention. While related, these two issues require a distinct assessment both with regard to their content and their nature.

In this context, the Appeals Chamber first notes that, in its review of Mr Duterte’s detention under article 60(3) of the Statute, the Pre-Trial Chamber assessed Mr Duterte’s health condition as one of the factors which may have an effect on the risk factors under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute that were identified in the Initial Decision on Detention. As the Appeals Chamber has found above, the Pre-Trial Chamber, in its examination of Mr Duterte’s health condition , took into account the Panel’s Reports which provide the most updated and reliable information on Mr Duterte’s health 131 condition. R ecalling that the Defence’s Report provides the medical practitioners’ opinion with respect to the impact of Mr Duterte’s health condition on the risk factors under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute, without any new information with respect to Mr Duterte’s health condition, the Appeals Chamber finds no error in the Pre-Trial Chamber’s approach in this respect and considers that the Defence’s R eport provides information which has no bearing on the Pre- Trial Chamber’s assessment under article 60(3) of the Statute.

The Appeals Chamber further notes that the Pre-Trial Chamber, on the basis of the information before it, subsequently assessed whether there were any new or changed circumstances in relation to the risks under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute that were identified in the Initial Decision on Detention, namely whether Mr Duterte’s continued detention is necessary to ensure: (i) his appearance; (ii) that he does not obstruct or endanger the investigation or court proceedings; and (iii) preventing him from continuing with the commission of the crimes alleged in the Arrest Warrant or related crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.

The Appeals Chamber considers that while reports provided by experts with up-to-date and reliable medical information may assist the Pre-Trial Chamber in its assessment of Mr Duterte’s health condition, the assessment of the risk factors under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute, including the impact of Mr Duterte’s health condition on these risks, is a legal determination to be made by the Pre-Trial Chamber that does not require any assistance of medical practitioners. In this regard, the Appeals Chamber

131 See paragraph 63 above. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 23/29

recalls that experts are persons “who, by virtue of some specialised knowledge, skill or training can assist the Chamber in understanding or determining an issue of a technical nature that is in dispute”, and that it is for a chamber of the Court to decide whether the person qualifies as an expert and to assess the reliability and probative value of any 132 report prepared by the expert.

Accordingly , the Appeals Chamber is not persuaded by the Defence’s contention that the Defence’s Report constitutes expert evidence of which the Pre-Trial Chamber was obliged to assess the content, in its review of the risk factors under article 58(1)(b) of the Statute. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber rejects the arguments of the Defence in this regard.

In this context, the Appeals Chamber also notes the Defence’s contention alleging “inconsistent” or “vacillating” reasoning of the Pre -Trial Chamber in relying upon the Panel’s Reports which w ere submitted in the context of the issue of Mr Duterte’s fitness to stand trial, in lieu of the Defence’s Report which was prepared for “the discrete issue 133 of risk”. The Appeals Chamber finds no error in the Pre- Trial Chamber’s approach in relying upon the information available in the record of the case concerning the health 134 condition of Mr Duterte, in particular the Panel’s Reports . The assessment of a suspect’s medical condition is discrete from a pre- trial chamber’s legal determination on the fitness to take part in the pre-trial proceedings. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber rejects the arguments of the Defence in this respect.

5 The alleged effect of the Impugned Decision on Mr Duterte’s Fair Trial Rights The Defence submits that the Pre-Trial Chamber ’s rejection of the Defence’s Report on the “sole basis […] that it had been proffered by a party to the proceedings”

132 See Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen , Judgment on the appeal of Mr Ongwen against the decision of Trial Chamber IX of 4 February 2021 entitled “Trial Judgment” , 15 December 2022, ICC-02/04-01/15-2022-Red (A), para. 1588 (emphasis added). 133 See Appeal Brief , para. 21. 134 See also Pre-Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo , Decision on the review of Laurent Gbagbo ’ s detention pursuant to article 60(3) of the Rome Statute , 12 November 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11- 291, para. 51. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 24/29

135

infringed upon Mr Duterte ’s rights to a fair hearing, and “a reasoned

136 137

determination ” and undermines the principle of equality of arms.

The Appeals Chamber recalls that “[t]he relevant chamber must ‘ensure the

138

fairness of the proceedings in compliance with articles 64(2) and 67 of the Statute’” ,

and that “protecting the integrity of the proceedings […] is a matter that is necessarily

139

within the jurisdiction of the Pre- Trial Chamber”. This is also reflected in the context

of the assessment of evidence, in particular in article 69(4) of the Statute which provides

that a chamber of the Court has discretion to “rule on the relevance or admissibility of

any evidence, taking into account, inter alia , the probative value of the evidence and

140

any prejudice that such evidence may cause to a fair trial ”.

In the present case, the Appeals Chamber first notes that the Pre-Trial Chamber

consistently emphasised that, in order to preserve the fairness of the proceedings, it

141

would not rely upon medical reports provided by any party to the proceedings. As

noted above, the Defence did not raise any issues in this regard before the Pre-Trial

142

Chamber.

The Appeals Chamber further notes that the Pre-Trial Chamber provided ample

opportunities for the parties and participants to present their submissions and

135 Appeal Brief , para. 23. 136 Appeal Brief , para. 24; see also para. 34. 137 Appeal Brief , para. 25. 138 The Prosecutor v. Mahamad Said Abdel Kani , Judgment on the appeal of Mr Mahamat Said Abdel Kani against the decision of Trial Chamber VI entitled “Decision on the Defence Application for Interim Release of Mahamat Said Abdel Kani and Contact Restrictions” , 19 May 2022, ICC-01/14-01/21-318 (OA3), para. 61. See also The Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al- Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”) , Judgment on the appeal of Mr Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman against the decision of Trial Chamber I of 23 January 2024 entitled “Decision on the Defence’s request for postponement of the resumption of the Defence case”, 6 March 2024, ICC-02/05-01/20-1097-Conf (OA13), para. 50; The Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al- Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”) , Dissenting Opinion of Judge Luz Del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza to Judgment on the appeal of Mr Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman against the decision of Trial Chamber I of 17 February 2023 entitled “Decision on the admissibility of video (DAR-OTP-0216-0119) and records of telephone calls (DAR-OTP-0216-0127, DAR-OTP-0216- 0128)” , 28 June 2023, ICC-02/05-01/20-982-OPI, para. 8; The Prosecutor v. Maxime Jeoffroy Eli Mokom Gawaka , Dissenting Opinion of Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa and Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza , 19 December 2022, ICC-01/14-01/22-124-Anx-Red (OA3), para. 9. 139 Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali , Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II dated 20 July 2011 entitled “Decision with Respect to the Question of Invalidating the Appointment of Counsel to the Defence” , 10 November 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11-365 (OA3), para. 46. 140 Emphasis added. 141 See Impugned Decision , para. 24; Order of 8 September 2025 , para. 25; Decision of 24 September 2025 , para. 12; Decision of 7 January 2026 , para. 9. 142 See paragraphs 55-56 above.

No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 25/29

observations in relation to its appointment of the Panel and to the Panel’s Reports, and 143 duly took them into account in its determinations. As noted above, the Pre-Trial Chamber also provided that the Defence could rely upon the Panel’s findings on the health condition of Mr Duterte in its observations in respect of the review of the 144 145 Mr Duterte’s detention, which the Defence indeed did. Furthermore, the Pre-Trial Chamber, in the Impugned Decision, examined the Defence’s specific arguments concerning Mr Duterte’s health condition under the section entitled “Article 58(1)(b) 146 of the Statute and Mr Duterte’s medical condition”.

In this context, the Appeals Chamber also notes that the Defence previously submitted before the Pre-Trial Chamber two reports concerning Mr Duterte’s health 147 condition which were prepared by the medical practitioners selected by the Defence. These reports were provided to the Panel and the Panel indicated in its reports that it took into considerations these reports in its assessment of Mr Duterte’s health 148 condition. In this regard, the Appeals Chamber notes the Decision of 24 September 2025 in which the Pre- Trial Chamber instructed that the Panel shall be provided “with all relevant documents and materials, including: (i) Mr Duterte’s medical record, including any new materials added to it following the issuance of the present decision; 149 and (ii) all relevant filings on the case record”. In said instruction, the Pre-Trial Chamber included the aforementioned reports as relevant filings to be provided to the 150 Panel.

In light of the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber considers that the Defence has failed to establish any error of the Pre-Trial Chamber with respect to the fairness of the proceedings. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber rejects the arguments of the Defence in this respect.

143 See paragraphs 26-27, 29 above. 144 Decision of 7 January 2026 , para. 8. 145 Defence’s Observations of 9 January 2026 , paras 6-7, 12-14. 146 See Impugned Decision , paras 26-29. 147 See Defence’s Submission of 18 July 2025. 148 Annex I to Panel’s Reports , para. 3.2; Annex II to Panel’s Reports , para. 1.7; Annex III to Panel’s Reports, p. 7; Annex IV to Panel’s Reports , para. 24. 149 Decision of 24 September 2025 , para. 20. 150 See Decision of 24 September 2025 , para. 20, fn. 13. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 26/29

As regards the alleged breach of the principle of equality of arms, the Appeals Chamber recalls that the principle requires that “ each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him 151 or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the other party ” . The Appeals Chamber notes that the Defence does not substantiate how the Pre- Trial Chamber’s determination not to rely upon the Defence’s Report placed it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the Prosecutor. In this context, the Appeals Chamber recalls the Pre- Trial Chamber’s consistent position that it would not rely upon medical reports provided by any party to the proceedings, and also notes that the Defence relied upon the Panel’s findings on Mr Duterte’s condition in its observations with respect to the review of the Mr Duterte’s detention. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber rejects the Defence’s arguments in this regard.

Regarding the alleged lack of reasoning, the Appeals Chamber recalls that as regards the “minimum threshold” required for a reasoned decision, it has held that

‘[t]he extent of the reasoning will depend on the circumstances of the case’. Such reasoning ‘will not necessarily require reciting each and every factor that was before the […] Chamber to be individually set out, but it must identify which facts it found to be relevant in coming to its conclusion.’ ‘Relatively sparse’ reasoning will not amount to an error if it is nonetheless ‘sufficiently clear to 152 discern the basis’ for the finding challenged on appeal. While the reasoning of the Pre-Trial Chamber for its determination not to consider the Defence’s Report in the Impugned Decision was relatively sparse, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Pre-Trial Chamber recalled its prior decisions in this regard, emphasising the impartiality and neutrality of the Panel, and stressed that “with a view to preserving the fairness of the proceedings ”, it would not rely upon the Defence’s Report, “since the Defence lacks the requisite expertise and is a party to the

151 See The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo , Judgment on the appeals against Trial Chamber II’s ‘Decision Setting the Size of the Reparations Award for which Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is Liable’ , 18 July 2019, ICC-01/04-01/06-3466-Red (A7-A8), para. 248. 152 Situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela I , Judgment on the appeal of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela against Pre- Trial Chamber I’s “Decision authorising the resumption of the investigation pursuant to article 18(2) of the Statute” , 1 March 2024, ICC-02/18-89 (OA), para. 187, referring to Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Mahamat Said Abdel Kani , Judgement on the appeal of Mr Mahamat Said Abdel Kani against the decision of Pre- Trial Chamber II entitled ‘Decision on the “Prosecution’s Request for Extension of Contact Restrictions”’ , 29 June 2021, ICC-01/14-01/21-111- US-Exp (a public redacted version registered on 17 May 2022, ICC-01/14-01/21-111-Red), para. 45 (footnotes omitted). No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 27/29

153 proceedings ” . In these circumstances, the Appeals Chamber does not consider that the Pre-Trial Chamber failed to comply with its obligation to provide a reasoned decision and therefore made an error of law.

Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber rejects the Defence’s arguments concerning the principle of equality of arms, as well as Mr Duterte’s rights to a fair hearing and to a reasoned decision.

6 Overall conclusion Having rejected or dismissed all of the Defence’s arguments, the Appeals Chamber rejects the Defence’s ground of appeal in its entirety.

V. NOTIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT ON THE APPEAL

Pursuant to rule 158(2) of the Rules, read in conjunction with article 83(4) of the Statute, judgments of the Appeals Chamber “shall be delivered in open court”. However, in the circumstances of the present appeal and considering the confidential nature of the matter at hand, the Appeals Chamber finds it appropriate to deliver this judgment by way of notification to the parties (regulations 31 and 32 of the Regulations).

VI. APPROPRIATE RELIEF

In an appeal pursuant to article 82(1)(b) of the Statute, the Appeals Chamber may 154 confirm, reverse or amend the decision appealed. In the present case, the Appeals Chamber unanimously confirms the Impugned Decision.

153 See Impugned Decision , para. 24. 154 See rule 158(1) of the Rules. No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 28/29

_____________________________ Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza Presiding

_____________________________ _____________________________ Judge Tomoko Akane Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa

_____________________________ _____________________________ Judge Gocha Lordkipanidze Judge Erdenebalsuren Damdin

th Dated this 6 day of March 2026 At The Hague, The Netherlands

No: ICC-01/21-01/25 OA4 29/29