Media clarify: “Crime against humanity” is not about numbers 

CHEERS to the media organizations that explained the term “crimes against humanity,” in connection to the arrest of President Rodrigo Duterte by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Speaking to Filipino media in The Hague, The Netherlands last March 28, Vice President Sara Duterte asked why the media kept referring to 30,000 casualties of the “drug war” in their coverage, as the prosecution only presented 181 pieces of evidence to the ICC. She added that one cannot prove that there was systematic killing if all the victims could not be named.

Duterte supporters had been echoing the same sentiment online, arguing that the 43 murder cases cited in the warrant did not suffice as a basis for the charge.

Only a few news outfits did the research to show that the vice president and Duterte’s supporters were wrong.

Necessary elements 

Philstar.com on April 1 and news.ABS-CBN.com on April 2 both cited Article 7 of ICC’s “Elements of Crime,” which listed the three requirements for an act to be considered as a crime against humanity as follows: 1) the perpetrator killed one or more individuals; 2) the conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians; and 3) the perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.

Philstar.com’s Dominique Nicole Flores further explained that in applying for the warrant, the prosecution considered the large-scale attacks across the Philippines as “widespread,” and that the existence of a policy that enabled a pattern of violence made the attacks “systematic.” Flores also cited Gilbert Andres, an ICC-accredited lawyer, who said that the “Double Barrel” memorandum issued by the police repeatedly used the term “neutralize” as an action to be taken against drug suspects. 

Andres clarified that multiple homicide cases with no connection between them would not qualify as crimes against humanity.

Flores also referred to a commentary on the Rome Statute by William Schabas, an international law professor at Middlesex University. Schabas said the terms “widespread or systematic” look at the attack as a whole, not at the specific acts as charged. Schabas also said that while “there is no need to identify” the casualty, the prosecutor must specify the location, date, method, circumstances and the perpetrator’s connection to the crime.

Rappler carried the same important points in Lian Buan’s March 31 report written in Filipino, recalling that in 2017, Malacañang even bragged about the 3,967 killed in drug operations as an accomplishment. Buan reported that in a 2018 resolution, the Philippines’ Supreme Court (SC) said treating killings as an accomplishment characterized these as state-sponsored. She said the SC asked the Office of the Solicitor General to submit documents on drug-related killings, but has not released any decision on the matter until now.

Convicted on a smaller number

Meanwhile, lawyers representing surviving families of the drug war victims cited individuals whom the ICC convicted of crimes against humanity, even with a smaller number of murders. 

The Philippine Star and The Manila Times on March 31 cited Kristina Conti, who called Sara Duterte’s view “simplistic.” Conti referred to the case of Jean Paul Akayesu of Rwanda, a politician who actively participated in the killing of three civilians during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s. The Star added that “Akayesu was also convicted of two more counts of crimes against humanity of murder for ordering a local militia group to kill eight refugees and five teachers on ethnic grounds.”

Daily Tribune on March 31 cited Neri Colmenares, who referred to the cases of Bosco Ntaganda, a Congolese rebel leader and Dominic Owen, a leader of a militia group in Uganda. Ntaganda and Owen were found guilty of five counts and 61 counts, respectively, of crimes against humanity, for sanctioning the killing of a large number of civilians. 

Not just mere numbers

The sources cited by the reports above agreed on a crucial point: The ICC looks not at the exact number of dead, but at the manner by which the killings were executed and at the common links between the victims.

Indeed, there is a wealth of sources and documents on international law and the ICC. The media accounts that reported only what Sara Duterte said provided incomplete reports, limited to the opinion of a non-expert related to the accused. 

Journalists should have known better than give such prominence to what   Sara Duterte has to say about the case, without presenting views to present more informed opinion. By so doing, they contributed to the spread of disinformation. 

Cheers to those who stepped up to point out the error of her views.