\n<\/p>\n
Behind the closed doors of a large room at the international criminal court\u2019s fortress-like headquarters in The Hague, senior diplomats who oversee the court have been gathering each week to try to resolve a crisis.<\/p>\n
On their agenda: the fate of the ICC\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
The committee of diplomats \u2013 made up of a rotating selection of 21 of the ICC\u2019s 125 member states \u2013 is weighing two lengthy reports on the claims as part of a convoluted process that could still take months to conclude.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Here, the Guardian explains some of the key questions about the case \u2013 which is the most serious crisis for the court since it was established 24 years ago to prosecute the world\u2019s gravest crimes.<\/p>\n
The sexual abuse allegations against Khan \u2013 which he denies \u2013 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.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s team. She is a mother and her life, friends say, has been upturned by a situation that has caused severe psychological distress.<\/p>\n
The staffer \u2013 who initially chose not to raise a complaint, in part because she feared it could damage the ICC\u2019s Palestine case \u2013 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\u2019s office and at his home.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s claims, which he also denies, contained several similarities with the court staffer\u2019s allegations about the alleged abuse while at his house.<\/p>\n
Khan lawyers have said he \u201ccategorically denies\u201d having \u201charassed 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\u201d.<\/p>\n
After the allegations against Khan first emerged in late 2024, the ICC\u2019s governing body, known as the assembly of state parties (ASP) and made up of the court\u2019s 125 member countries, commissioned a UN watchdog to conduct a fact-finding investigation into the claims.<\/p>\n
Over the course of a year, the UN agency conducted scores of interviews and reviewed large volumes of evidence.<\/p>\n
According to a two-page summary of the watchdog\u2019s final report, which has been seen by the Guardian, the inquiry found that \u201cevidence indicated\u201d Khan\u2019s conduct towards the woman had \u201cescalated over time, resulting in him engaging in nonconsensual sexual contact with her\u201d.<\/p>\n
The summary said that during interviews with investigators Khan \u201cwould not confirm\u201d whether he had a sexual relationship with the staffer. The inquiry concluded it had \u201cidentified evidence establishing a factual basis\u201d for the alleged victim\u2019s claims against Khan. It recommended the ASP \u201cconsider appropriate action based on the evidence\u201d.<\/p>\n
According to the document, Khan told investigators he had \u201cnever engaged in any prohibited conduct\u201d in relation to the woman. His lawyers have said the summary \u2013 which has been circulated to ICC member states \u2013 was \u201cnot accepted by the prosecutor as fair or accurate\u201d.<\/p>\n
After receiving the inquiry\u2019s report, the court\u2019s governing body handed the document to three senior judges. Tasked with providing advice on how to legally characterise the inquiry\u2019s findings, the judges \u2013 from Belgium, Jamaica, and South Africa \u2013 produced an 85-page analysis.<\/p>\n
The panel unanimously concluded that the UN watchdog\u2019s findings \u201cdo not establish misconduct or a breach of duty under the relevant legal framework\u201d. Khan\u2019s lawyers were quick to argue that Khan had been exonerated. Some media outlets claimed he had been \u201ccleared of all wrongdoing\u201d.<\/p>\n
However, the situation is more complex. An executive summary of the panel\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
They said the UN inquiry had failed to establish \u201cwhere the truth lies\u201d, leaving it with \u201cmany unresolved factual disputes\u201d. This meant, they wrote, that any attempt to assess the findings was \u201calmost destined for fruitlessness\u201d since there was \u201clittle that is capable of being legally characterised\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n
They added: \u201cWhile 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Danya Chaikel, the International Federation for Human Rights\u2019 representative to the ICC, who has been closely following the case, said the panel itself had \u201cacknowledged it was not equipped to definitively determine whether the alleged conduct occurred. This is precisely why the panel\u2019s advice was not an exoneration.\u201d<\/p>\n
The panel\u2019s decision to use beyond reasonable doubt \u2013 usually used in criminal cases \u2013 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.<\/p>\n
Khan\u2019s 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 \u201cunless it proves every element of the alleged misconduct\u201d beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n
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 \u2013 commonly known as the balance of probabilities \u2013 is more appropriate when resolving workplace misconduct claims.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
A decision on whether Khan should face disciplinary measures will be made by the committee of diplomats from 21 of the ICC\u2019s member states. The group, known as the ASP bureau, has been meeting each week.<\/p>\n
Khan\u2019s lawyers have argued it is now \u201cobliged to defer to the judicial findings\u201d of the panel, but under procedures put in place the bureau does not have to accept judges\u2019 conclusions, which is legal advice rather than a formal ruling.\u00a0<\/p>\n
At a crucial meeting last week, a majority of states in the bureau \u2013 15 of the 21 \u2013 voted in favour of making an \u201cinitial determination\u201d that Khan may have committed \u201csome form of misconduct\u201d. Four states voted against, while two abstained.<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
If it proceeds, the bureau will then consider whether Khan\u2019s alleged treatment of the ICC staffer amounted to \u201cserious misconduct\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
Khan\u2019s supporters have claimed that he is the victim of a \u201cwitch-hunt\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The court has long been a target for Israel\u2019s 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\u2019s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda. Khan\u2019s representatives have suggested he is now the subject of a similar effort.<\/p>\n
Sources familiar with the UN watchdog\u2019s report said it found that ICC officials it interviewed had dismissed any suggestion that the woman was some sort of Israeli operative.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
However, pro-Israel actors do appear to have been active in leaking information about the staffer\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Some senior ICC officials believe the scandal has made the court an easy target for its opponents, allowing detractors to conflate questions about Khan\u2019s conduct with ones about the legitimacy of the court and its Palestine case.<\/p>\n
Within the court\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
On Monday, the association of international criminal law prosecutors \u2013 whose president was one of the senior prosecutors involved in preparing the ICC warrants for Israeli leaders \u2013 warned against filtering the misconduct proceedings \u201cthrough the lens of the Gaza investigation\u201d.<\/p>\n
The \u201cinvocation of geopolitical pressure to reframe an internal accountability matter\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Behind the closed doors of a large room at the international criminal court\u2019s 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\u2019s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, a British lawyer whose tenure at the court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":48180,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[56],"tags":[682,1891,160,4516,187,3166,531,359],"class_list":{"0":"post-48179","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-crime-justice","8":"tag-abuse","9":"tag-claims","10":"tag-court","11":"tag-criminal","12":"tag-crisis","13":"tag-dragged","14":"tag-international","15":"tag-sexual"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48179","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=48179"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48179\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/48180"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=48179"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=48179"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=48179"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}