5 hours ago
9
Behind the closed doors of a large room at the international criminal court’s fortress-like headquarters in The Hague, senior diplomats who oversee the court have been gathering each week to try to resolve a crisis.
On their agenda: the fate of the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, a British lawyer whose tenure at the court was thrown into disarray nearly two years ago by sexual abuse allegations that he denies.
The committee of diplomats – made up of a rotating selection of 21 of the ICC’s 125 member states – is weighing two lengthy reports on the claims as part of a convoluted process that could still take months to conclude.
Last week, the committee voted to progress the case against Khan, which his representatives have sought to cast as part of an effort to discredit him for his 2024 decision to seek arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials over alleged crimes in Gaza.
What began as a set of workplace abuse allegations by a woman who worked for Khan has become entangled in geopolitics and disputes over legal standards of proof. It has taken on a wider significance in the shadow of the Gaza arrest warrants.
Here, the Guardian explains some of the key questions about the case – which is the most serious crisis for the court since it was established 24 years ago to prosecute the world’s gravest crimes.
What are the allegations and what has Khan said about them?
The sexual abuse allegations against Khan – which he denies – relate to his conduct between 2023 and 2024 towards a woman who worked directly for him in the division of the ICC tasked with investigating and prosecuting atrocities.
The woman, a lawyer in her late 30s at the time of the alleged misconduct, is a well-regarded court staffer. She is from Malaysia, is Muslim and worked at the ICC for several years before joining Khan’s team. She is a mother and her life, friends say, has been upturned by a situation that has caused severe psychological distress.
The staffer – who initially chose not to raise a complaint, in part because she feared it could damage the ICC’s Palestine case – has alleged that Khan engaged in coercive sexual behaviour over an extended period. The alleged misconduct is said to have occurred in hotel rooms on work trips, in Khan’s office and at his home.
Last year, a second woman came forward to the Guardian with allegations that Khan had mistreated her while she was working as his intern earlier in his career. The second woman’s claims, which he also denies, contained several similarities with the court staffer’s allegations about the alleged abuse while at his house.
Khan lawyers have said he “categorically denies” having “harassed or mistreated any individual, or having misused his position or authority, or engaged in any conduct that could be interpreted as coercive, exploitative, or professionally inappropriate”.
Who has investigated the claims and what did they find?
After the allegations against Khan first emerged in late 2024, the ICC’s governing body, known as the assembly of state parties (ASP) and made up of the court’s 125 member countries, commissioned a UN watchdog to conduct a fact-finding investigation into the claims.
Over the course of a year, the UN agency conducted scores of interviews and reviewed large volumes of evidence.
According to a two-page summary of the watchdog’s final report, which has been seen by the Guardian, the inquiry found that “evidence indicated” Khan’s conduct towards the woman had “escalated over time, resulting in him engaging in nonconsensual sexual contact with her”.
The summary said that during interviews with investigators Khan “would not confirm” whether he had a sexual relationship with the staffer. The inquiry concluded it had “identified evidence establishing a factual basis” for the alleged victim’s claims against Khan. It recommended the ASP “consider appropriate action based on the evidence”.
According to the document, Khan told investigators he had “never engaged in any prohibited conduct” in relation to the woman. His lawyers have said the summary – which has been circulated to ICC member states – was “not accepted by the prosecutor as fair or accurate”.
What happened after the inquiry was concluded?
After receiving the inquiry’s report, the court’s governing body handed the document to three senior judges. Tasked with providing advice on how to legally characterise the inquiry’s findings, the judges – from Belgium, Jamaica, and South Africa – produced an 85-page analysis.
The panel unanimously concluded that the UN watchdog’s findings “do not establish misconduct or a breach of duty under the relevant legal framework”. Khan’s lawyers were quick to argue that Khan had been exonerated. Some media outlets claimed he had been “cleared of all wrongdoing”.
However, the situation is more complex. An executive summary of the panel’s recommendations, which has been seen by the Guardian, suggests that the panel in effect conceded that they were unable to complete the task asked of them.
They said the UN inquiry had failed to establish “where the truth lies”, leaving it with “many unresolved factual disputes”. This meant, they wrote, that any attempt to assess the findings was “almost destined for fruitlessness” since there was “little that is capable of being legally characterised”.
They added: “While the panel cannot make a definitive proclamation on the existence or absence of the alleged misconduct, given its mandate, it finds itself compelled to the conclusion that on the materials disclosed, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct measured against the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt.”
Danya Chaikel, the International Federation for Human Rights’ representative to the ICC, who has been closely following the case, said the panel itself had “acknowledged it was not equipped to definitively determine whether the alleged conduct occurred. This is precisely why the panel’s advice was not an exoneration.”
Why did the panel adopt ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as its standard?
The panel’s decision to use beyond reasonable doubt – usually used in criminal cases – as its standard of proof has been divisive, prompting debate among experts in the laws used to resolve disputes in international institutions such as the ICC.
Khan’s supporters have claimed the decision was supported by legal precedent. An adviser to Khan has argued that the ICC cannot impose disciplinary sanctions on someone “unless it proves every element of the alleged misconduct” beyond reasonable doubt.
Others have challenged this interpretation of the law, pointing to cases suggesting such allegations should be assessed using a less onerous standard. They argue that using a civil standard – commonly known as the balance of probabilities – is more appropriate when resolving workplace misconduct claims.
This civil evidential standard is used by the UN watchdog that investigated the allegations. Its investigators were unaware their findings in the Khan case would be judged against the higher criminal standard, sources familiar with the inquiry said.
Who decides what now happens to the chief prosecutor?
A decision on whether Khan should face disciplinary measures will be made by the committee of diplomats from 21 of the ICC’s member states. The group, known as the ASP bureau, has been meeting each week.
Khan’s lawyers have argued it is now “obliged to defer to the judicial findings” of the panel, but under procedures put in place the bureau does not have to accept judges’ conclusions, which is legal advice rather than a formal ruling.
At a crucial meeting last week, a majority of states in the bureau – 15 of the 21 – voted in favour of making an “initial determination” that Khan may have committed “some form of misconduct”. Four states voted against, while two abstained.
Khan now has almost a month to respond to this preliminary conclusion. The bureau, which will also now hear from the alleged victim, must then decide on whether the case should go forward or be dropped.
If it proceeds, the bureau will then consider whether Khan’s alleged treatment of the ICC staffer amounted to “serious misconduct” or a lesser kind of misconduct. A finding of serious misconduct could lead to an unprecedented reckoning for the ICC: a secret ballot in which all 125 of its member states would vote on whether to remove Khan from office.
Are the abuse claims part of a campaign to smear Khan?
Khan’s supporters have claimed that he is the victim of a “witch-hunt” over his momentous decision to seek arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the former defence minister Yoav Gallant. His lawyers have suggested the abuse claims may be part of a plot to discredit him.
The ICC is undoubtedly under significant pressure as a result of its Palestine case. Khan, along with several other court officials and judges, have been placed under aggressive economic sanctions by the Trump administration.
The court has long been a target for Israel’s intelligence agencies. In 2024, the Guardian revealed how they ran a decade-long campaign against the ICC, which included attempts to intimidate and smear Khan’s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda. Khan’s representatives have suggested he is now the subject of a similar effort.
Sources familiar with the UN watchdog’s report said it found that ICC officials it interviewed had dismissed any suggestion that the woman was some sort of Israeli operative.
In its reporting on the allegations brought by the ICC staffer and the second woman against Khan, the Guardian has found no evidence to suggest either had raised the allegations as part of an elaborate plot.
However, pro-Israel actors do appear to have been active in leaking information about the staffer’s complaint. Netanyahu referred directly to her case in a video message last year attacking Khan, claiming the arrest warrants were contaminated by the abuse allegations.
The woman, who remains an ICC employee, has told friends that seeing her case weaponised by the Israeli prime minister was one of the most upsetting moments in a years-long ordeal.
What does this mean for the future of the ICC?
The abuse allegations have hung over the ICC at a time when the need for a permanent court established to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide has for many felt increasingly urgent.
Some senior ICC officials believe the scandal has made the court an easy target for its opponents, allowing detractors to conflate questions about Khan’s conduct with ones about the legitimacy of the court and its Palestine case.
Within the court’s prosecution division, which has about 400 staff, there is mounting frustration with the drawn-out process, as well as tensions among staff over whether Khan should be allowed to return to office.
On Monday, the association of international criminal law prosecutors – whose president was one of the senior prosecutors involved in preparing the ICC warrants for Israeli leaders – warned against filtering the misconduct proceedings “through the lens of the Gaza investigation”.
The “invocation of geopolitical pressure to reframe an internal accountability matter”, the association said, could further damage the court. That framing, however, may be how many continue to interpret the proceedings against Khan, whatever the outcome.
Show more
