Published: February 28, 2026
Introduction
In a forceful and theatrical closing before judges of the International Criminal Court, British-Israeli defense lawyer Nicholas Kaufman delivered a blunt message: prosecutors should “pack up and go home” because, he argued, former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte is not guilty.
The statement came during the confirmation of charges proceedings, a critical pre-trial stage that will determine whether Duterte’s case moves forward to a full trial. Kaufman’s remarks underscored the defense’s strategy — to dismantle the prosecution’s theory of command responsibility and challenge both the sufficiency of evidence and the court’s jurisdiction.
Table of Contents
- The Context of the ICC Confirmation Hearing
- Kaufman’s “Pack Up and Go Home” Remark
- Defense Argument: No Direct Orders
- The Question of Criminal Intent
- Jurisdictional Objections
- Prosecution’s Position
- The Role of Witness Testimony
- Command Responsibility Under Scrutiny
- Political and Legal Repercussions
- What Happens Next at the ICC
1. The Context of the ICC Confirmation Hearing
The confirmation of charges hearing is not a trial. It is a procedural stage in which ICC judges assess whether prosecutors have presented sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe the accused committed the alleged crimes.
If confirmed, the case proceeds to trial. If not, charges may be declined or revised.
2. Kaufman’s “Pack Up and Go Home” Remark
During closing submissions, Kaufman delivered one of the most headline-grabbing lines of the proceedings, asserting that the prosecution’s case lacked credible legal grounding.
By saying prosecutors should “pack up and go home,” the defense signaled confidence that the evidence presented does not meet the ICC’s threshold for confirmation.
Tumuklas pa
Event Coverage
Mga online na kurso sa pagiging magulang
Content Creation
The statement also framed the defense narrative: that the case is politically charged and legally insufficient.
3. Defense Argument: No Direct Orders
A central pillar of Kaufman’s argument is the absence of proof that Duterte issued direct orders to commit unlawful killings during his administration’s anti-drug campaign.
The defense maintains that strong political rhetoric does not automatically constitute criminal instruction under international law.
4. The Question of Criminal Intent
Kaufman argued that the prosecution misinterpreted Duterte’s speeches and public pronouncements. According to the defense, statements widely cited by prosecutors were rhetorical flourishes aimed at deterrence rather than operational directives.
Establishing intent is crucial in crimes against humanity cases, making this issue central to the confirmation stage.
5. Jurisdictional Objections
The defense also reiterated objections to the ICC’s jurisdiction over Duterte, emphasizing legal arguments regarding the Philippines’ relationship with the court.
Although jurisdictional challenges are separate from factual guilt, they remain part of the broader defense posture.
6. Prosecution’s Position
Prosecutors argue that Duterte’s public statements, combined with patterns of killings and witness testimony, demonstrate a coordinated policy that may amount to crimes against humanity.
They contend that command responsibility does not require direct physical participation, but rather proof of authority, knowledge, and failure to prevent or punish crimes.
7. The Role of Witness Testimony
Witness credibility is expected to be a decisive factor. The defense has questioned the reliability and motivations of key witnesses, while prosecutors assert that testimonies establish a pattern of systemic conduct.
At this stage, judges evaluate whether the evidence reaches the threshold for confirmation — not whether it proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Command Responsibility Under Scrutiny
The case hinges in part on the doctrine of command responsibility, a legal principle holding leaders accountable for crimes committed by subordinates if they knew or should have known and failed to act.
Kaufman argued that the prosecution failed to establish this linkage convincingly.
9. Political and Legal Repercussions
Beyond legal implications, the case carries significant political weight. It marks one of the most closely watched ICC proceedings involving a former head of state from Southeast Asia.
The confirmation decision will influence both domestic political discourse and international legal precedent.
10. What Happens Next at the ICC
After closing submissions, ICC judges will deliberate and issue a written decision within the prescribed timeframe.
If the charges are confirmed, the case proceeds to trial, where evidence will be tested under a higher standard of proof. If not, the prosecution may seek to amend or appeal.
Conclusion
Nicholas Kaufman’s emphatic declaration — urging prosecutors to “pack up and go home” — encapsulates the defense’s position that the case against Rodrigo Duterte lacks the legal and evidentiary foundation required to proceed.
The judges’ forthcoming decision will determine whether this high-profile international case advances to trial or ends at the confirmation stage. Until then, the debate over accountability, jurisdiction, and the interpretation of political rhetoric remains at the center of the proceedings.
Related Articles
- ICC Confirmation of Charges Explained
- Command Responsibility in International Criminal Law
- Political Reactions to the Duterte ICC Case
- How the ICC Evaluates Evidence
- Legal Analysis: From Confirmation to Trial