ICC Rights Watch

No One Above the Law: President Duterte’s ICC Arrest Breaks Global Ground

By: Lela Lanier 

Associate Articles Editor

 

THE HAGUE, Netherlands—On March 11, 2025, former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte was arrested in Manila and transferred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The ICC issued a warrant for Duterte’s arrest for crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, and rape, committed during his presidency. His arrest is a landmark moment for human rights and justice, signaling that impunity for mass atrocities is no longer a given.

 
Pre-Trial Chamber I Judges, in the initial appearance of former President of the Philippines Rodrigo Roa Duterte. Photo Courtesy of ICC-CPI.
  

Rodrigo Duterte, who served as President of the Philippines from 2016 to 2022, was infamous for his brutal “war on drugs.” Under his leadership, thousands of suspected drug offenders—many of whom were never given due process—were executed extrajudicially. Human rights groups estimate the death toll to be between 6,300 and 30,000, with the poor disproportionately affected. Prior to his presidency, as Mayor of Davao City, Duterte allegedly orchestrated the Davao Death Squad (“DDS”), a vigilante group responsible for at least 1,400 killings. His tenure was marked by his open endorsement of violence, promising to kill criminals and drug users rather than subject them to trial. Despite withdrawing the Philippines from the ICC in 2018, the court-maintained jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member.

The ICC issued Duterte’s arrest warrant under Article 58(1) of the Rome Statute, which requires reasonable grounds to believe a suspect committed crimes within the court’s jurisdiction and that arrest is necessary. The prosecution established that crimes against humanity, including systematic extrajudicial killings, fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Duterte’s leadership of the Davao Death Squad and Philippine law enforcement, along with his public directives to kill drug suspects, provided compelling evidence for his arrest. Testimonies from former police officers and victims’ families further substantiated these claims. Given Duterte’s extensive influence in the Philippines and his previous refusal to cooperate with the ICC, his arrest was deemed necessary to prevent obstruction of justice and to ensure the protection of witnesses.

The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber ruled that Duterte’s arrest was warranted, citing the gravity of his alleged crimes and the absence of any expectation that he would voluntarily appear before the court. The decision reaffirmed the fundamental principle of equal protection under the law—no individual, regardless of status, should be above justice.

Duterte’s arrest carries profound implications. The Philippines has become only the second country in history to arrest and transfer a former head of state to the ICC, setting a significant global precedent. For the thousands of victims denied due process—and for their grieving families—this moment offers renewed hope that justice is possible. More broadly, Duterte’s arrest sends a clear warning to other world leaders with outstanding ICC warrants, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and Sudan’s Omar Al-Bashir: international justice is slow, but it is relentless.

Duterte’s fall marks a turning point in the fight against impunity. His victims were denied their right to life and due process, but his arrest proves that the rule of law can still prevail.

 

For further information, please see: 

Brookings—Why did the Philippines turn over its former president to the ICC? —1 Apr. 2025

ICC—Rodrigo Roa Duterte makes first appearance before the ICC: confirmation of charges hearing scheduled for 23 September 2025—14 Mar. 2025 

ICC—Situation in the Philippines: Rodrigo Roa Duterte in ICC custody—12 Mar. 2025

ICC—Statement of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor on the arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte—12 Mar. 2025

ICC—Warrant of Arrest for Mr. Rodrigo Roa Duterte—7 Mar. 2025 

New Lines Magazine—Duterte’s Arrest Sparks a Reckoning in the Philippines—2, Apr. 2025   

Chaos in the Congo: Over 7 Million Now Displaced as M23 Rebels Seize Key Cities Amidst Ongoing Reports of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

By: Bridget Congo 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

Kivu, Demographic Republic of Congo (DRC) — This year, the M23 rebel group has significantly expanded its territorial control in the DRC, capturing Goma and Bukavu, the capitals of North and South Kivu provinces, as well as the strategic mining hub Walikale in North Kivu. As a result, the total number of displaced individuals has now surpassed 7 million. Widespread human rights violations, including those targeting civilians, journalists, and human rights activists, have been reported, with both M23 forces and, in some cases, state actors implicated. As the conflict reaches its most severe point in over a decade, mounting evidence suggests the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in violation of international law.  

 
A displaced woman at a Goma IDP camp in front of her shelter. In early 2025, many such camps near Goma were destroyed amidst conflict with non-state armed groups, displacing residents once again. Photo Courtesy of Mireille Ngwamba for the IRC.
  

Amnesty International and other human rights groups have documented numerous violations committed by the Rwandan-backed M23 fighters, including summary executions, sexual violence, forced recruitment, mass displacement, village raids, and looting. Many of these acts constitute war crimes under Article 8(2) of the Rome Statute, to which the DRC acceded in 2002. However, M23 rebels are not the sole perpetrators of human rights violations in the DRC. The Congolese government has increasingly suppressed press freedom in response to the ongoing conflict. On January 7, the President of the Communication and Broadcasting Board (Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel et de la communication, CSAC) announced that Radio France Internationale, France 24, and TV5 Monde’s Africa program were at risk of suspension for their coverage of the “alleged advances of terrorists.” On January 9, 2025, Justice Minister Constant Mutamba issued a warning on his X social media account that individuals, including journalists, who disseminate information regarding the M23 and Rwandan forces would face severe legal repercussions, including the death penalty. The increased violence and territorial gains by M23 rebels signal a profound shift in the conflict, disrupting the food supply for millions and further straining humanitarian efforts. 

Several international courts have increased their monitoring of events in the DRC. In October 2024, International Criminal Court (“ICC”) Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC announced that the Office is renewing its second investigative effort in the DRC, with a priority focus on alleged Rome Statute crimes committed in North Kivu since January 1st, 2022. This investigation is active. The first investigation commenced in 2004 and led to three convictions, in the cases The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, and The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda and to the acquittal of Mr Ngudojolo Chui. In February 2025, The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“AfCHPR”) held its first interstate public hearing regarding the DRC in the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo v. Republic of Rwanda. The DRC accused Rwanda of various human rights violations in relation to their backing of the M23 rebel group, marking a significant development in the court’s history. 

In February 2025, concern over the escalating conflict in the DRC grew among European officials. Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned that the risk of regional escalation is at its highest, calling for parties to cease hostilities and resume dialogue within the framework of the Luanda and Nairobi processes, emphasizing the need for all parties to uphold international human rights and humanitarian law. The European Parliament issued a Motion for a Resolution on the escalation of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, calling for the suspension of EU budget support and mineral trade agreements with Rwanda, as well as targeted sanctions against individuals and entities responsible for supporting the M23 rebels and perpetuating violence in the region. 

 

For further information, please see:

AfCHPR —- AfCHPR Concludes a Public Hearing in Application NO. 007/2023, Democratic Republic of Congo v. Republic of Rwanda — 13 Feb. 2025

Aljajeera English — Mapping the human toll of the conflict in DR Congo — 24 Mar. 2025

European Parliament — MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the escalation of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo — 10 Feb. 2025

Human Rights Watch — DR Congo: Rwanda-Backed M23 Target Journalists, Activists — 12 Mar. 2025

ICC — Call for Information on the Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — 12 Oct. 2024

ICC — Democratic Republic of the Congo — 14 Oct. 2024

International Rescue Committee — Conflict in the DRC: What you need to know about the crisis — 6 Feb. 2025

OHCHR — HC Türk on DRC: “The risk of escalation throughout the sub-region has never been higher.” — 07 Feb. 2025

X — Constant Mutamba — 9 Jan. 2025








ICC Office of the Prosecution Issues Application for Arrest Warrant for Myanmar’s Acting President, Min Aung Hlaing

By: Lauren Clement 

Senior Articles Editor


MYANMAR—On November 27, 2024, the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan submitted an application to the ICC’s judicial division to issue an arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing, the acting President of Myanmar, for crimes against humanity of deportation and persecution of the Rohingya. This application came after extensive investigations by the Office of the Prosecutor from 2019—2024. ICC judges must now decide whether the application meets the standard for issuing an arrest warrant.

 
Min Aung Hlaing, acting President of Myanmar. Photo courtesy of Ye Aung Thu/Agence France-Presse, Getty Images.
  

Although the Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic minority, have lived in Myanmar for centuries, they have never been recognized as an official ethnic group and have been denied citizenship since 1982, making them the world’s largest stateless population and vulnerable to exploitation and sexual and gender-based violence and abuse. The Rohingya have experienced decades of discrimination and violence leading to frequent waves of human rights violations. However, 2017 marked the largest mass displacement of the minority group as the military burned entire villages, killed thousands of families, and partook in other human rights violations.  As a result, more than 2.6 million Rohingya were internally displaced and almost one million sought refuge in Bangladesh. In 2021, the Myanmar military seized power in a coup led by Min Aung Hlaing, sentencing then-president Aung San Suu Kyi to 17 years in prison. This shift in power set off another wave of violence and triggered a new refugee crisis. 

Before Myanmar’s current self-appointed prime minister led the 2021 coup, Min Aung Hlaing was a career army officer and commander in chief since 2011, with a reputation for attacks on ethnic groups. Since 2021, his regime has cracked down violently against political opposition, imprisoned pro-democracy protesters, and threatened punishment for civilians who refused to join the military. Under his command, over 27,000 people have been arrested and 21,000 are still detained, and more than 260 people were reportedly tortured to death. 

The ICC’s legal process for sentencing a perpetrator of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and/or crimes of aggression takes part in 6 steps. First, the Office of the Prosecutor determines whether there is sufficient evidence of crimes that fall within the ICC’s jurisdiction. Second, the Prosecution submits an application to judges to issue an arrest warrant, which is what the Prosecutor asked of the ICC judiciary on November 27 of this year. Third, the pretrial stage marks the initial appearance of the suspect before the judges, as well as a confirmation of charges where the judges decide if there is enough evidence to go to trial after hearing each sides’ arguments. Fourth, in the trial stage, the prosecution tries to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the judges issue a verdict and, if found guilty, a sentence for up to 30 years, or, up to life in special circumstances. Fifth, both sides may appeal the verdict and sentence. Finally, if the verdict is not overturned, the accused serves his or her sentence in a member state that has agreed to enforce ICC sentences. 

The ICC’s Prosecutor’s application for an arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing was met with support from several different countries, as well as the Rohingyas and the country’s National Unity Government (which was established by elected lawmakers after the 2021 coup), who urged the ICC judges to swiftly issue the warrant and called on ICC member states to enforce the warrant to “uphold justice and international law.” If the ICC judiciary decides to issue the warrant, however, there are other procedural roadblocks in the way to Min Aung Hlaing’s arrest,  as Myanmar is not an ICC member state, and the acting President rarely travels to states that are members who can serve an arrest warrant. 

 

For further information, please see:

ICC – How the Court Works – last visited 1 Dec. 2024

ICC – Statement of ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC: Application for an arrest warrant in the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar – 27 Nov. 2024

The New York Times – Who is Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing of Myanmar? – 27 Nov. 2024

The New York Times – Myanmar General’s Purge of Rohingya Lifts His Popular Support – 26 Nov. 2017 

Reuters – Why Myanmar’s travel-shy leader could be difficult to arrest – 28 Nov. 2024

UNHCR – Rohingya Refugee Crisis Explained – 22 Aug. 2024



Russian Departure from the European Council and EUCHR Leaves Behind Questions About How to Handle Cases

Zoé Tkaczyk

Impunity Watch News Guest Writer

 

STRASBOURG, France – After Russia’s departure from the European Court of Human Rights (EUCHR), questions about how to handle cases pending before the Court and the alleged dilution of standards that initially allowed Russia to join the Court remain. 

 
Kremlin forces in Russian-occupied Donetsk drive tanks during a rehearsal for the Victory Day parade, marking the anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in WWII. Courtesy of Alexander Ermochenko and Reuters.
  

In 2002, the Court issued its first judgment against Russia to assist a Russian national conscripted to work on the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster after brutal radiation exposure. But by 2012, 22,358 complaints had been filed against Russia. With a backlog of more than 120,000 cases, the Court was already facing a docket crisis, only exacerbated by Russia’s expulsion. In 2022, 2,129 judgments and decisions and 17,450 applications were pending against Russia.

The war in Ukraine only raised the count, and ECHR began publishing interim verdicts. Many view these procedural changes as undermining the Court’s ability to handle cases in its jurisdiction. That said, the interim ruling was the first international court to prove Russia’s occupation in Donbas since 2014 and considered the evidence from the occupied territories, including the downing of flight MH17 and actions by the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) and members of the Russian military.

But now, after the Russian exit, many question how the Court can handle the previously pending cases without jurisdiction, and these uncertainties are only exacerbated by Russia’s departure from the Council of Europe as well. Critics claim Russia was a thorn in both by weakening democratic standards in exchange for only mild internal reform in Russia. 

These tensions have pervaded since Russia considered membership in 1994. And since 2014 and the annexation of Crimea, the relationship has been a sour one, with Russia refusing to pay dues. When Ukraine filed complaints against Russia’s acts, Russia did not listen to the ensuing Court orders. In 2022, after the full-scale invasion, the Kremlin did not listen to the Court order to stop hostilities. This situation deeply challenges the assumption that it is better to include rogue actors in international legal associations. Since Russia backed out, it is unclear if inclusion led to more harm or good, but it is clear that the Council and associated court were not successful in spreading liberal democracy to Russia as it had hoped.

Russia’s departure has not stopped the Council of Europe from acting on behalf of its victims in Ukraine and previously in Georgia. A key issue in these deliberations is identifying and defining conflict borders, which looks largely at where each state has control of its territory. Relying on past Georgian precedent, the ECHR did not have the jurisdiction to define borders because the “fog of war” prevented recognition of control during active hostilities. But earlier this year, the ECHR was able to rule that Russia controlled the DPR and LPR territories as of 2014 and assigned responsibility for the MH17 flight among other acts. Despite this ruling and revelation of the DPR and LPR alignment with Russia, the Kremlin continues to deny involvement. The ECHR ruling was certainly a political win for Ukraine, confirming the invasion began in 2014, not February 2022. It debunked Russian claims about independent separatist movements justifying the invasion. Russia’s objection to the ECHR’s subject matter jurisdiction over complaints concerning armed conflict was also rejected.

For now, the ECHR is considering issues of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The ECHR is considering any exceptional circumstances including jurisdiction ratione loci and jurisdiction ratione personae. The ECHR will consider occupation and annexation of another’s territory, whether unlawful or lawful and state agent’s authority over individuals in the territory. This is a win for Ukraine in that it legally declares when the war began, extending it to eight years earlier. The question that now remains is how to address violations that occurred after September 16, 2022, when Russia left the ECHR. It will remain responsible for acts carried out before that date, but no one is expecting compliance in the near future. If it seeks to return one day, a different question will emerge, but until then, the ECHR seems to be limited temporally by which violations it can examine. 

 

This article is one of a seven-part series exploring the Russo-Ukrainian War. Zoé Tkaczyk is a J.D./MAIR candidate (May 2025) at the Syracuse University College of Law and Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. This article series was inspired by sessions from the Carnegie-Maxwell Policy Planning Lab Fellowship: Postwar: Europe, Ukraine and the Future of European Order. Special thanks to Cora True-Frost and Alexa Connaughton for their guidance, feedback, and edits.



Court House News – One year after Russian expulsion from top European human rights body, Ukraine war rages on – 15 Sep. 2023

European Committee on Legal Co-operation – Supporting Ukraine in the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights   

Atlantic Council – ECHR ruling confirms Russian invasion of Ukraine began in 2014 – 14 Feb. 2023

Gibson Dunn – Russia in the European Court of Human Rights – Recent Decisions May Impact Rights of Investors – 30 May 2023 

Just Security – Prosecuting the Crime of Aggression in Ukraine and Beyond: Seizing Opportunities, Confronting Challenges and Avoiding False Dilemmas – 2 April 2024



Ukraine Revamps Constitutional Court System Amid Corruption Charges to Prosecute Russian Aggressors

Zoé Tkaczyk

Impunity Watch News Guest Writer

 

KYIV, Ukraine – The Constitutional Court, Ukraine’s highest legal power, was in crisis before Russia’s invasion in 2022. Now the country, in the middle of armed conflict, must remake its legal institutions if it wants to prosecute Russian aggressors captured in its territory. 

 
The inside of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court House. Photo courtesy of Ukrainian Constitutional Court House website.
  

From judges with conflicts of interest to alleged presidential interference, to backtracking corruption efforts, Ukraine must find a way to rectify its courts quickly. After a series of failed judicial reform bills, President Zelensky reconvened the Commission on Legal Reform. During the initial days of the Russian invasion, the Constitutional Court delayed major rulings, but now the Court seeks to prosecute individual Russians and perhaps even Russia as a whole for the crime of aggression. 

While negotiations on an ad hoc tribunal for the crime of aggression have garnered the majority of the media attention, Ukrainian prosecutors have forged ahead and begun domestic investigations while the international community determines the crime of aggression question. The Ukrainian criminal code prohibits the crime of aggression under Article 437. This includes “‘the planning, preparation, initiation and conduct’ of aggressive war, as well as ‘participation in conspiracy aimed at commission’ of such actions.” The Ukrainian code does not require the prosecuted individual to be in a position of leadership, unlike the Rome statute so even ordinary fighters and soldiers can be found guilty of aggressively waging war and the associated actus reus. 

The first conviction of the crime of aggression in the Ukrainian courts happened in May 2022, when 21-year-old Russian tank commander, Vadim Shishimarin was jailed for life after shooting an unarmed civilian, 62-year-old Oleksandr Shelipov, a few days after the invasion began. By July 2022, Ukraine’s prosecutor-general, Iryna Venediktova, and her office were investigating more than 21,000 war crimes and crimes of aggression allegedly committed by Russian forces. By March 2023, at least 26 war crimes suspects had been convicted by Ukrainian courts.

Before Russia’s invasion, national courts rarely saw aggression cases. Now, prosecutors are beginning to align Article 437 of the Ukrainian criminal codes to a more narrow scope, similar to the Rome statute. In the past, legislative attempts to bring Article 437 up the Rome standard failed. These prosecutions offer an interesting case study, as they show legal advocates conforming the code to international standards when the legislation and courts themselves have deprioritized doing so. Even with the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine (OPG) sending guidance on standardized prisoner of war (POW) immunity, prosecutors seemed to be conforming to international humanitarian norms on combatant immunity fairly seamlessly.

Despite its corruption crisis, in February of this year, the Court issued a decision on an Article 437 case. It clarified who could be found guilty of the crime of aggression, further aligning Ukraine with international standards, rather than the criminal code’s broad definition. When the decision was released, 99 criminal aggression cases were registered, including cases against typical defendants, like military commanders, foreign intelligence service workers, and high-level state officials, but also including 30 “instigators of war” such as Russian singers and university rectors. While many–if not most–of these will take place in absentia, whether the Court can successfully rule on an atypical defendant’s crime of aggression poses an interesting challenge for the Court.

Additionally, Ukraine’s domestic prosecutors have an important opportunity to set a precedent for how the crime of aggression could be handled at national levels. This could set customary international law norms in an area that has seen little activity in the past century, which could be key to protecting the right to life. It is interesting to note that the list of potential defendants does not include notable suspects in aggression cases like President Putin himself and other members of the Troika. The Court seems committed, at least right now, to preserving the immunity of the Troika before its courts. It seems generally accepted that these personal immunities cannot be surpassed at a national level and will need some kind of extraordinary judicial response. 

 

This article is one of a seven-part series exploring the Russo-Ukrainian War. Zoé Tkaczyk is a J.D./MAIR candidate (May 2025) at the Syracuse University College of Law and Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. This article series was inspired by sessions from the Carnegie-Maxwell Policy Planning Lab Fellowship: Postwar: Europe, Ukraine and the Future of European Order. Special thanks to Cora True-Frost and Alexa Connaughton for their guidance, feedback, and edits.

 

Cites:

BBC News – What is a war crime and could Putin be prosecuted over Ukraine? – 20 July 2023

Confronting Challenges and Avoiding False Dilemmas – 2 April 2024

Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute- Ukraine’s Constitutional Court Crisis, Explained

Just Security –  Prosecuting the Crime of Aggression in Ukraine and Beyond: Seizing Opportunities,