ICC probe of chief prosecutor fails Roth says

The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, has claimed that an internal review cleared him of sexual misconduct allegations. But critics argue the process failed to deliver a clear verdict, leaving the court’s leadership in limbo. Khan took a leave of absence last year amid claims of repeated misconduct by a colleague, which he denies. The investigation, led by the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), detailed testimony from both the complainant and Khan but avoided making credibility judgments. The result: a 150-page report that reads like “he said, she said,” offering no resolution to the central dispute.

The complainant, a Malaysian lawyer, alleged Khan engaged in misconduct during their professional relationship. She testified she hesitated to report the behavior due to fears of retaliation and financial strain from caring for a dying mother. Khan, meanwhile, has called the allegations an attempt to undermine the ICC. The OIOS investigation did not address these contradictions directly, instead leaving the burden of proof unmet. A three-judge panel later criticized the OIOS for its failure but had no authority to conduct its own inquiry. The panel’s conclusion—that the evidence did not disprove the allegations—left the matter unresolved.

The executive bureau of the Assembly of States Parties now faces a choice. One option: return the case to the OIOS with instructions to make credibility assessments. Another: the bureau itself could review the written record to determine Khan’s guilt or innocence. This would be unusual, as credibility assessments typically require in-person testimony. However, the bureau could weigh factors like the complainant’s persistence in reporting despite career and personal risks, or whether Khan’s behavior aligns with the allegations. The process has dragged on for months, with no clear end in sight.

The controversy has drawn unexpected attention from the Israel-Palestine conflict. Supporters of the Israeli government have suggested Khan’s allegations against Israeli officials were a distraction. The ICC had already initiated war-crime investigations against Israeli leaders, and a separate three-judge panel upheld those charges. Khan denies any connection between the allegations against him and the Israeli case. Some speculate the complainant is linked to Mossad, but no evidence supports this claim. Security reviews and a Qatari-funded investigation found no such ties.

Despite these distractions, the core issue remains: whether Khan’s conduct warrants removal from his post. His critics argue that the ICC cannot function effectively without an active chief prosecutor. The bureau must decide whether to act independently or pressure the OIOS to complete its work. Either way, the process has already delayed critical legal actions. The complainant deserves a thorough review of her claims, and Khan’s position hinges on whether he committed the alleged misconduct. The ICC’s reputation—and its ability to hold power to account—depends on resolving this dispute without further delay.