ICC member states vote on removing prosecutor Karim Khan amid misconduct allegations

Member states of the International Criminal Court (ICC) will vote on Friday on whether to fire chief prosecutor Karim Khan for alleged sexual misconduct in a case ‌that has damaged the tribunal’s credibility at a time when the US has ramped up its attacks on the court. Khan, 56, denies any wrongdoing. The vote on his fate comes just a week after Washington announced a renewed diplomatic campaign to dismantle the ICC, which it says is a threat to US sovereignty. “The court is already in a precarious state,” Mark Ellis, the executive director of the International Bar Association and a longtime ​ICC observer, told Reuters. “The Khan situation is a separate but very significant part of the overall perception of the court’s credibility,” he added. The US has said no diplomatic ​options are off the table in its campaign against the ICC, which has already seen 11 of the ICC’s top officials facing sanctions. Accuser points to power disparity, Khan denies wrongdoing The Khan vote also lays bare internal divisions among the court’s governing bodies and its member states. While officials from the court’s governing body said Khan should ​be dismissed because he committed serious misconduct, according to documents seen by Reuters, it remains unclear if member states will follow that recommendation. For him to be removed, an absolute majority of ​at least 63 of the court’s 125 member states will have to agree in the secret ballot to be held at a meeting at the UN headquarters in New York. The vote is due around 3 pm (1900 GMT). Khan’s accuser, a junior ICC staffer, spoke publicly for the first time last week in an interview with CNN in which she repeated her allegations that the prosecutor had a non-consensual sexual relationship with her. “There ​is no way for something to be consensual when you have such a power disparity,” the woman, identified only by her first name Sarah, told CNN. Lawyers for Khan told Reuters ​he denied “any sexual relationship of any kind” with the alleged victim. They called the decision that led to Friday’s vote unlawful, procedurally unfair and unsupported by evidence, and pointed to a panel of independent judges ‌who found there ⁠was no evidence to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt after a report by UN investigators into the matter. Vote will not end ICC’s internal turmoil Whatever the outcome, the vote will not put an end to internal divisions. If ICC member states dismiss Khan, it will be seen by some as the result of political pressure after Khan sought arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza. Israel is not a member of the court and has dismissed the warrants as bogus. It would also set off an election process for a new prosecutor, ​which is not expected to finish before the ​start of next year. If Khan survives the ⁠vote, his position would be weakened and it would give critics of the court another stick to beat it with. The ICC was established in 2002 by the international community to prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. It asserts jurisdiction only if one of its ​125 member states is unable or unwilling to prosecute atrocities itself. The United States has never been a member of the court. However, ​the ICC statute also gives ⁠the court the power to prosecute atrocity crimes committed on the territory of member states by nationals of non-member states. A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said last week Washington was considering diplomatic pressure on other nations to withdraw from the court. The EU has reiterated its support for the ICC and said threats against the court or its elected officials are not acceptable. ⁠However, the EU ​and most ICC member states have yet to take concrete public steps that could shield the institution. The International ​Federation for Human Rights, a human rights NGO working with victims in cases being considered by the ICC, called the new US campaign the most serious attack to date on the world’s only permanent international criminal court. “States created ​the ICC together; they now have the opportunity — and the responsibility — to defend it together,” Secretary General Drissa Traore said.

Exclusive: President of ICC oversight body confirms no finding of retaliation by Khan Submitted by Sondos Asem on Mon, 07/20/2026 - 14:01 In a letter to court member states, Paivi Kaukoranta reiterates ASP bureau has not upheld allegations of misconduct against prosecutor raised by staff in his own office ASP President Paivi Kaukoranta at a Hague meeting in December 2025 (ICC/Flickr) Off The president of the International Criminal Court’s oversight body, the Assembly of States Parties, wrote to member states last week to confirm that no retaliation allegations made against Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan have been established by members of the executive bureau. Paivi Kaukoranta confirmed in a letter dated 17 July that the 21-member bureau had failed to reach the required majority to confirm any finding of misconduct in relation to retaliation allegations brought by two members of Khan’s office staff during the UN-led investigation. Kaukoranta, a Finnish diplomat, made a decision to outsource the misconduct probe into Khan to the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) in November 2024. The chief prosecutor also faced a complaint of alleged sexual misconduct as part of that investigation, after two internal investigations into the matter were opened and closed due to the complainant’s refusal to cooperate. The four allegations under investigation by the OIOS, according to court documents seen by MEE, comprised a complaint by a woman in Khan’s office regarding “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and abuse of authority, as well as three allegations of retaliation against members of his office. Khan has denied all allegations of wrongdoing. Both the complainant and Khan cooperated with the UN investigation. For more than a year, UN investigators were tasked with gathering and weighing evidence against Khan to enable a panel of judges appointed by the bureau to provide authoritative legal advice on whether the prosecutor had committed misconduct, applying the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". On 11 December, they submitted their 150-page report and 5,000 pages of evidence to the panel.  The OIOS report dropped one of the retaliation allegations, saying that “the evidence suggested that the actions taken were not retaliatory but were, instead, a response to concerns about [the complainant’s] work performance". 'The matter was closed' The judges then spent nearly three months examining the OIOS probe before reaching their conclusion in March. In a report seen by MEE, the panel concluded unanimously that the facts presented in the UN investigation "do not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the relevant framework". ICC’s Khan probe ‘reduced to political referendum’, Palestinian rights groups warn Read More » But a few weeks after the judges' report, a majority of bureau members backed a motion to disregard it, suggesting that Khan may have committed misconduct. The vote prompted concerns that the process could be politicised. After giving Khan and the complainants a final opportunity to make further submissions, the bureau then moved to formally suspend him two months later and referred the matter to the ASP.  Redacted copies of the UN and expert panel reports, along with other submissions to the bureau, have been distributed to all 125 member states ahead of a meeting at the UN headquarters in New York on Friday when the full ASP chamber will vote on Khan's future. MEE reported that the bureau's confidential decision of 8 June stated that it found "the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt" that Khan "engaged in a sexual relationship" with the complainant, and argued that "in the context of that power imbalance a sexual relationship could never be appropriate". But the bureau’s decision did not make a finding of misconduct related to any of the retaliation allegations. Kaukoranta’s letter on Friday corroborates MEE’s reporting on this matter. MEE understands that following the decision, some states sought to reopen the issue and called for the ASP to consider retaliation allegations. Other states urged the bureau to provide a clear statement. In response, the ASP president clarified that the matter is now closed. “As you will recall, in paragraph 62 of its 8 June 2026 decision concerning the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, the Bureau stated that it ‘could not reach a decision on the allegations of retaliation made by W06 and W10,’” she wrote, using the identifiers for two witnesses. “This position reflected division in the Bureau, in which the legal threshold for decisions on matters of substance could not be reached,” she added, indicating that the bureau could not reach the required two-thirds majority of states present and voting. “As the Prosecutor benefits from the presumption of innocence, the legal effect of the Bureau’s statement is that no misconduct in relation to the allegations of W06 and W10 has been established against the Prosecutor,” she wrote. “It was upon this basis that the Bureau did not refer the matter of retaliation to the Assembly. It was also on this basis that I informed W06 and W10, on behalf of the Bureau, that the matter was closed in relation to the allegations they had made.” Friday's vote by ASP member states comes amid continuing questions and criticism about the ASP Bureau's handling of the investigation into the allegations against Khan. On Saturday, MEE reported comments by Josep Borrell, the former EU foreign policy chief, who accused the ASP of holding a "political vote"  to remove Khan instead of upholding judicial findings that cleared him of wrongdoing. Borrell argued that the Khan case is "part of a larger offensive against the ICC", citing the US sanctions and threats targeting Khan and other officials following his decision to seek arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders in May 2024. International law News Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19 Update Date Override 0

ICC’s Khan probe ‘reduced to political referendum’, Palestinian rights groups warn Leading Palestinian human rights organisations have warned that the disciplinary process against suspended International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Karim Khan has been marked by a denial of due process and "politicisation" that is "corroding" the court's independence, days before member states vote on his removal. In a joint statement published on Friday, the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC), whose members include Al-Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Addameer, said it took "no position on either the validity of the claims or the defence" against Khan, but warned that flaws in the process "breaches basic human rights guarantees" and represented "a grave departure from the rule of law". "This dangerously opens the Court to political overreach," the statement said. Read more: ICC’s Khan probe ‘reduced to political referendum’, Palestinian rights groups warn ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan visits the Okhmatdyt children's hospital in Kyiv, which was hit by Russian shelling, on 8 July 2024 (ICC/AFP)

ICC’s Khan probe ‘reduced to political referendum’, Palestinian rights groups warn Submitted by Sondos Asem on Sun, 07/19/2026 - 11:10 Largest coalition of Palestinian rights groups says Karim Khan disciplinary process has ‘failed all parties’ and is ‘corroding’ court's independence ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan visits the Okhmatdyt children's hospital in Kyiv, which was hit by Russian shelling, on 8 July 2024 (ICC/AFP) Off Nine leading Palestinian human rights organisations have warned that the disciplinary process against suspended International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Karim Khan has been marked by a denial of due process and "politicisation" that is "corroding" the court's independence, days before member states vote on his removal. In a joint statement published on Friday, the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC), whose members include Al-Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Addameer, said it took "no position on either the validity of the claims or the defence" against Khan, but warned that flaws in the process "breaches basic human rights guarantees" and represented "a grave departure from the rule of law". "This dangerously opens the Court to political overreach," the statement said. The council argued that the disciplinary process "has been reduced to a political referendum following the national interests of individual States Parties". "It is impossible to extricate such national interests from the political impact of the Chief Prosecutor’s decisions made in the various situations currently before the ICC," it wrote. The council called on member states of the ICC's Assembly of States Parties (ASP) to protect the independence of the court and the prosecutor, citing recent threats against the court by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and what it described as "unwarranted political interference" by the bureau, the ASP’s executive body. The ASP, made up of representatives from the court's 125 member states, is due to hold a special session at UN headquarters in New York on 24 July to vote on Khan's future.  'The Bureau, as a political body composed of diplomats, does not have the independence, impartiality or legal expertise to make assessments on the legal characterisation of conduct' - PHROC statement Khan, who has strenuously denied allegations of sexual misconduct, was suspended by the bureau on 8 June after a majority of its 21 member states said he had committed "serious misconduct". The PHROC criticised the bureau's decision to press ahead despite the findings of an independent panel of three senior judges, Paul Lemmens, Seymour Panton and Leona Theron, appointed by the bureau to legally assess a UN investigation into the allegations. In March, the panel unanimously concluded that the evidence did not establish misconduct to the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard applied by the court. It found that the investigation had revealed “entirely conflicting accounts” and largely hearsay evidence. PHROC noted that "there has been no legal characterisation by an ad hoc panel that the factual findings of the investigation amount to serious misconduct or serious breach of duty in the case of the Prosecutor", and said the bureau's subsequent finding to the contrary "side-stepped the legal findings" of the panel. The statement also criticised the bureau’s conclusion that Khan had “engaged in a sexual relationship” with the complainant that was inappropriate given the power imbalance between them. PHROC said "neither Karim Khan nor the complainant had reportedly ever claimed" such a characterisation.  The bureau's decision, the council added, "failed to establish 'non-consensual sexual conduct'", despite that having been the substance of the original complaint. Former EU top diplomat denounces ICC bureau’s disregard for judicial findings on Karim Khan Read More » “Notably, the Bureau, as a political body composed of diplomats, does not have the independence, impartiality or legal expertise to make assessments on the legal characterisation of conduct, nor did it enjoy the same timeframe as the ad hoc Panel to independently examine the two reports and 5,000-pages of evidence,” the council said. The statement also took aim at the bureau's "rushed amendments" of the voting process "to fast-track potential removal of Karim Khan from office". Middle East Eye has reported that the bureau changed the court’s procedure from a two-step process requiring an initial two-thirds majority vote to establish serious misconduct, followed by a separate vote requiring the support of 63 member states to remove the prosecutor, to a single vote. "The alteration of the process, removes the 2/3 majority vote, which would have been difficult to achieve, thereby reducing the voting threshold for removing the Prosecutor, and dismantling important checks and balances on the political decision-making of the Bureau," the council wrote. Risk of Israeli impunity The allegations against Khan unfolded in April 2024 alongside a campaign by the US and its allies to disrupt his office's efforts to pursue a war crimes investigation into Israeli officials over the war on Gaza.  His decision to seek arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in May 2024 prompted retaliatory US sanctions by the Trump administration. Exclusive: UK government lawyer warned ICC bureau its Khan disciplinary process 'unlawful' Read More » The sanctions were later expanded to target two deputy prosecutors and eight ICC judges, the UN special rapporteur on Palestine, and Palestinian NGOs that provided evidence to the court. PHROC linked the disciplinary process to what it described as a pattern of states working to shield Israel from ICC accountability. It pointed to interventions by several states, including some now sitting on the bureau, challenging the court's jurisdiction over Palestine in 2020, as well as the UK's 2024 legal challenge to the arrest warrants issued for Netanyahu and Gallant. PHROC also noted that Israel had cited leaked details of the misconduct investigation in a November 2025 filing seeking to have Khan disqualified from the Palestine case. The council warned of "the grave potential of Israel and its political allies, influencing and compromising any investigation of the Prosecutor carried out by political bodies, including the Bureau". "There is a very serious risk that State Parties will again prioritise their national interests and support for Israeli impunity over any genuine care or concern for either the interests of the complainant, the Prosecutor, or for the integrity of the Court," the statement said. PHROC said the disciplinary process, underway since late 2024, "has failed all parties" and risked causing "further untold damage" to the ICC and to international criminal justice more broadly. International law News Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19 Update Date Override 0

US and Israel used Karim Khan misconduct claims to 'defang' ICC, says former EU top diplomat Submitted by Sondos Asem on Sat, 07/18/2026 - 16:32 Josep Borrell denounces ICC bureau’s disregard for judicial panel findings and says the removal vote is part of reactions to Khan’s decsion to seek arrest warrants for Israeli leaders Former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell speaks to reporters before a meeting of EU defence ministers in Brussels, 19 November 2024 (Nicolas Tucat/AFP) Off Josep Borrell, the former EU high representative for foreign affairs, has accused the United States and Israel of exploiting sexual misconduct allegations against International Criminal Court chief prosecutor Karim Khan to achieve what he called their long-sought goal of neutralising the court from within. In an article published by Project Syndicate on Friday, Borrell urged ICC member states to uphold due process in their vote on the fate of Khan next week. “Some institutional failures unfold not through scandal but procedure, with acts of sabotage dressed up in the language of good-faith inquiry and accountability,” he wrote. “By the time anyone notices what is happening, the damage has been done.” “I fear that this is what we are witnessing in attacks against Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Recent developments seem to satisfy goals that the United States and Israel have spent months working toward.” The Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (ASP), which is made up of diplomatic representatives from the international court's 125 member states, is due to vote on Khan's future at the United Nations' headquarters in New York City on 24 July. It comes after the ASP’s executive bureau, a body of diplomats from 21 member states, determined by a two-thirds majority last month that Khan had committed "serious misconduct". This was despite a judicial panel, appointed by the bureau to review the findings of a United Nations investigation into complaints against Khan, concluding that the evidence against him was insufficient to establish any level of misconduct. Khan has strenuously denied any misconduct or breach of duty. Borell noted that, as exclusively reported by Middle East Eye, the bureau of the ASP has amended the voting process on Khan’s removal from a two-stage vote to a single vote in an apparent break with its own rules. He also noted the bureau’s conclusion that the prosecutor engaged in serious misconduct based on a novel allegation that both the complainant and prosecutor denied.  According to the court’s own rules, the ASP is the competent decision-maker for voting on a final determination of the misconduct allegations and whether to remove the prosecutor from office.  Any finding of misconduct would require the approval of a two-thirds majority of the states present and voting at the ASP.  If the ASP votes to find serious misconduct, it would then hold a second vote on whether to remove the prosecutor. A second vote to remove Khan would require an absolute majority of the 125-member ASP (63 votes), according to article 46 of the Rome Statute.  Exclusive: ICC bureau changes rules to lower threshold for Khan's removal Read More » The bureau’s March procedures paper, seen by MEE, gives effect to these court rules and outlines the course of action that would follow the bureau’s decision. However, the bureau has decided to merge the two votes into a single one, with an absolute majority needed to remove the prosecutor.  The 8 June confidential bureau decision, seen by MEE, states that the bureau found "the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt" that Khan "engaged in a sexual relationship" with the complainant, and argued that "in the context of that power imbalance a sexual relationship could never be appropriate". Khan denied the existence of any sexual relationship, while the complainant's account centred on allegations of non-consensual conduct. The bureau’s decision appeared to reframe the nature of the sexual misconduct, in an apparent departure from the sexual assault allegations that have been the centrepiece of the investigation as well as media leaks about the case.  “This is no mere formality. Folding the second question into the first—which, again, has not been proven—enables removal based on an unsubstantiated accusation, or on a different issue altogether (such as engaging in a consensual intimate relationship from a position of authority—something that no one ever alleged),” Borell wrote. Borrell traced the case against Khan to April 2024, when a group of US senators "warned - in fact, threatened" the prosecutor that seeking an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would make him "a target himself."  Khan pressed ahead regardless, filing for warrants against Netanyahu, former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas officials, having previously sought - and secured - warrants against Russian President Vladimir Putin, former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, and Taliban leaders. The former EU diplomat linked the case to a broader offensive against the court, pointing to a recent Wall Street Journal commentary by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in which he announced the administration's intention to dismantle the ICC “brick by brick.”   Rubio says US will dismantle ICC 'brick by brick' Read More » Borrell noted that Washington had already sanctioned 11 senior ICC officials, including Khan, two deputy prosecutors and eight judges, freezing their bank accounts and cancelling their credit cards and Apple, Amazon and PayPal accounts.  Citing Financial Times reporting, Borrell also said Trump had suggested to Chinese President Xi Jinping in a May meeting that China and Russia - neither of which is party to the Rome Statute - join Washington's campaign against the court, a detail he said undercut US claims that the effort was about defending national sovereignty.  "That America's chosen partners in this crusade are precisely the two countries with the greatest reason to fear the Court says more about the real purpose of the operation against Khan than any communique about sovereignty," he wrote. "The Trump administration and Netanyahu want the same thing: to ensure that no international court can touch soldiers, border agents, or its chosen allies, no matter how serious the allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity," Borrell added. “Both see the ‘Khan scandal’ as the perfect occasion to defang the court. They do not need to destroy it from the outside if its own member states can hollow it out from within, ignoring a judicial finding to hold a political vote against the man who signed the warrants that most inconvenienced them.” “Khan has shown the courage and fortitude to seek arrest warrants for suspects who would have been considered untouchable in the court's earlier years,” he concluded. “At a time when international criminal justice and the rule of law face a full-scale frontal assault, not least from indicted war criminals, he deserves the world's recognition and support.” International law News Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19 Update Date Override 0