THE International Criminal Court’s (ICC) confirmation of charges hearing against former president Rodrigo Duterte, which starts today, Feb. 23, is expected to be one of the most closely watched international legal events involving a former Southeast Asian leader. The proceedings could determine whether Duterte will face formal prosecution for alleged crimes against humanity linked to his controversial war on drugs. The hearing is distinct from a trial. Judges at Pre-Trial Chamber I will not assess Duterte’s guilt or innocence. Instead, they will determine whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. Experts say the hearing is critical because it is the first judicial opportunity to formally scrutinize the alleged pattern of extrajudicial killings reported during Duterte’s presidency. A notable feature of ICC proceedings is the participation of victims. In this case, 539 victims have representation. While their statements do not constitute formal evidence at this stage, they will help the judges understand the human impact of the actions under investigation, which is a relatively novel element in international criminal law. The Pre-Trial Chamber I, composed of three judges, has the discretion to manage submissions, call on any party to clarify legal points, and monitor compliance with procedural rules, such as limits on session length and restrictions on introducing new arguments during closing statements. A separate but related procedure — the annual review of detention — will also take place. This step ensures that Duterte is treated fairly while in custody and remains capable of participating in judicial proceedings. While no live witness testimony is expected during the hearing, the prosecution will submit evidence that will show patterns of killings and alleged state-sponsored operations during Duterte’s anti-drug campaign. Evidence may include documents, audiovisual material, and previously recorded testimonies. Witnesses, if eventually called at trial, could include experts, insiders, or former operatives who can provide direct knowledge of alleged policies and actions. Victims have a separate role: presenting the personal impact of the alleged crimes, highlighting the human cost without offering formal testimony under oath at this stage. Some individuals may occupy a dual role as both witnesses and victims. To help the audience follow the proceedings, it is important to distinguish between victims, witnesses, and evidence: Victims: Individuals who have suffered from the alleged crimes. They do not give sworn testimony during the confirmation of charges hearing but are represented by lawyers who communicate their experiences to the judges. Witnesses: People called to provide evidence under oath. This can include former officials, security forces, experts, or insiders who can give factual accounts of events, policies, or operations linked to the alleged crimes. Witnesses provide information that judges rely on to determine whether there is a case. Evidence: Documents, photos, videos, and prior testimonies that establish patterns, policies, or operations associated with the alleged crimes. At this stage, the prosecution submits such materials to show there is enough information to go to trial. In some cases, an individual may serve as both a victim and a witness, providing personal testimony that also helps establish patterns of alleged crimes. Understanding these distinctions is key for following ICC proceedings, where victims have a formal voice, but judges rely on evidence and witness testimony to decide whether to advance a case. The ICC has confirmed that the hearing will proceed without Duterte, who has waived his right to attend. The judges verified that he understood the consequences of his absence, ensuring that the hearing could move forward without delaying proceedings. Jurisdiction has been a point of contention. The Philippines formally withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019, yet the ICC maintains authority over alleged crimes committed while the country was a member between 2011 and 2019. The jurisdictional ruling is subject to defense appeals, but it allows the court to continue proceedings despite Duterte no longer being in the Philippines’ legal framework. Legal analysts emphasize that the confirmation of charges hearing is a critical test of accountability for alleged state-led human rights violations in Southeast Asia. Beyond Duterte’s personal legal exposure, the proceedings are seen as a benchmark for the ICC’s ability to uphold international justice standards in a region where domestic mechanisms have historically struggled with high-profile human rights cases. Observers also note the potential political implications. While the hearing focuses on legal questions rather than political ones, the outcome could influence Duterte’s legacy, public perception of accountability in the Philippines, and regional debates about the enforcement of international human rights law.