ICC

One week ago, several outlets reported on a consequential development in the disciplinary case regarding the alleged sexual misconduct by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, Karim Khan. In a confidential report addressed to the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), the judicial experts tasked with assessing the United Nations probe’s factual findings unanimously concluded that no misconduct or breach of duty by Khan could be established under the legal framework.

It is now for the 21 ICC states represented on the bureau to decide whether to uphold or depart from the panel’s legal conclusion. If the bureau were to find misconduct of a less serious nature, it could impose sanctions on Khan. A finding of serious misconduct would lead to a plenary ASP vote on the possible removal.

A minority of bureau members have reportedly been pushing for the judicial experts’ report to be set aside and for the bureau to substitute its own conclusions for those of the panel. This would be a precarious step. We are concerned that it would undermine the quality of subsequent decisions in Khan’s case and seriously damage the integrity of the ICC’s governance framework. It would also raise serious questions about the state parties’ credibility and their commitment to the rule of law in governing the court.

This position is consistent with our unequivocal belief that there must be zero tolerance for sexual and other forms of workplace abuse in any organisation — public or private — especially those dedicated to international justice and the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes, and that accountability for any such abuse is non-negotiable.

At the same time, particularly in politically sensitive cases, strict adherence to due process, the highest standards of decision-making, and the rule of law is of paramount importance to prevent ill-founded decisions, political interference, and abuse of power. These convictions are not in tension. For us, the ends do not justify the means.

It is true that the bureau is not legally bound by the panel’s conclusions: the experts performed an advisory function, and their report is not formally binding. Their mandate was to assist the bureau in reaching a credible and well-founded decision on the legal assessment of the factual findings reached in the UN investigative report.

The question before the panel was strictly legal. It was to give a legal characterisation of facts established by UN investigators. Factual findings are distinct from the allegations or the evidence on which they are based, and, as far as can be judged from media reports, the panel did not cross that line.

Diplomats should refrain from assuming the role of judicial experts at this stage, particularly now that such judicial expert advice has been issued. As a political body, the bureau initially recognised that it was not well-placed to make this legal determination on its own — understandably so, given the risks of politicisation of the process and the diminished credibility of any outcome. It mandated a nonpolitical, quasi-judicial body — a panel of judicial experts with relevant subject-matter expertise and experience — to carry out that assessment. This was a sound decision.

The integrity of the court and of the Rome Statute system is at stake as never before. Given the seriousness and complexity of this matter, it was appropriate that the legal assessment be entrusted to an independent and impartial body of judicial experts. In politically charged contexts, such bodies are best placed to assist political decision-makers in reaching conclusions that are both well-founded and credible – and, as much as possible, insulated from political influence.

This is precisely what the bureau set out to achieve. It developed a novel procedure to be applied to this case and itself chose and appointed the judicial experts. As revealed by The New York Times, the panel was composed of three highly regarded senior judges with impeccable track records and experience serving on the highest national and international courts. Tasked with the legal analysis of the UN investigators’ factual findings, it did the job it was meant to do – where such findings had been made.

But now that the process has run its course and the panel has reached its conclusions after three months of intensive work, some states and rights advocates are ready to ignore them because they disagree with the result. Why pursue a quasi-judicial process in the first place if its outcome can so readily be dismissed?

We are convinced that, given the current stage and the nature of the process that was adopted to get there, the panel’s report should be accorded due deference by the bureau and taken seriously, not dismissed lightly, by ICC states. Should states substitute their own conclusions, however, the outcome would be even more problematic than if no panel had been established in the first place.

Disregarding the report will create the impression that the panel was only needed to assist states in reaching one specific conclusion. Can the impression be avoided then that the judicial expert panel’s report has lost all value in the eyes of assembly officials and bureau states, who had devised and supported this process, once its conclusions proved unwelcome? The spectre of a show trial looms large.

Furthermore, if states disagree with the panel, one must ask: based on what factual findings and based on whose legal analysis? The bureau would need a very solid foundation to depart from the judicial experts’ conclusions. But it can realistically neither conduct a follow-up investigation to collect additional evidence and analysis of facts to resolve the remaining uncertainties, nor engage in their legal consideration de novo.

In our view, dismissing the judicial expert report and substituting the bureau’s own judgement would be deleterious to the rule of law, due process, and the integrity of the legal determination as to the existence or otherwise of misconduct by Prosecutor Khan. It would also undermine the authority of the judicial panel mechanism now codified in the ICC rules for any such situations in the future.

Political decision-making should not be allowed to replace and displace a legal assessment carried out in accordance with the highest standards of judicial competence, independence and impartiality, which the political body itself insisted on upholding.

The implication that legal form was used merely as a cover for arbitrary power would be hard to escape. We fear that this would plunge the ICC system deeper into an already existing crisis, without offering the relief some may hope for. The ICC states know full well that this is a cost they cannot afford, particularly at this juncture.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Karim Khan has denied the allegations and took voluntary leave from his position in May.

Judges have cleared the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, of all wrongdoing after an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct, Middle East Eye reports.

A report by Middle East Eye published on Saturday said a panel of three judges submitted a confidential report to the court’s oversight body, the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), on March 9.

“The Panel is unanimously of the opinion that the factual findings by [The UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services] OIOS do not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the relevant framework,” the report concluded, according to the sources cited by Middle East Eye.

The OIOS investigation was commissioned by the head of the ASP in November 2024 after a member of Khan’s office accused the prosecutor of sexual misconduct.

In August last year, a second woman came forward and alleged that Khan had abused his power over her while she was working for the British lawyer.

The woman had described his behaviour to UK newspaper The Guardian last year as a “constant onslaught” of advances.

Khan has denied the allegations and took voluntary leave from his position at the ICC in May, while awaiting the inquiry’s results. His deputy prosecutors have been in charge of his office in his absence.

According to Middle East Eye, the ASP met on Monday to discuss its response to the panel’s report. Under the court’s rules, if the bureau determines that no misconduct has occurred, the investigation should be closed.

The ASP has 30 days from receiving the report to make its preliminary assessment of the alleged sexual misconduct. Khan will then have 30 days to respond, and the bureau will have another 30 days to make its decision.

Khan declined to comment on the report, the outlet said.

The allegations of sexual misconduct came as Khan’s office was pursuing an investigation into alleged war crimes and genocide by Israeli officials and forces in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territory.

Khan sought arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then-defence minister, Yoav Gallant, over “criminal responsibility” for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

He also sought arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials over the alleged unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children during Moscow’s ongoing war on Ukraine.

March 12 (UPI) — The International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor announced Thursday that the United States did not commit crimes against humanity with its sanctions against Venezuela.

The investigation, called Venezuela II by the court, was referred to the court by Venezuela’s government in 2020, alleging that sanctions against the country had caused suffering and hardship.

The referral from now-deposed President Nicolas Maduro alleges the suffering of Venezuelans from “the application of unlawful coercive measures adopted unilaterally by the government of the United States of America against Venezuela, at least since the year 2014.”

Venezuela alleged that “murder, extermination, deportation, persecution and other inhumane acts constituting crimes against humanity” were committed, the OTP said.

The ICC prosecutor determined that the “evidential requirements of causation and intent are not met.”

The evidence “must provide a reasonable basis to believe that sanctions by the United States of America led to murder, displacement or other alleged crimes,” the OTP said.

The decision is unrelated to the January 2026 events in Venezuela, the prosecutor noted.

In January, the United States invaded Venezuela, arrested Maduro and his wife and took them to Manhattan, where they await trial on drug trafficking charges.

The ICC prosecutor said it is still investigating “Venezuela I,” a case that doesn’t involve the United States.

Frustrated players say they were left in the dark for days over their travel while England flew out within two days.

Cricket’s governing body has rejected suggestions of unequal treatment after the West Indies and South Africa squads were stranded in India for more than a week following their exit from the T20 World Cup, while England flew out in less than two days.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has been accused of giving preferential treatment to one team over the other two amid the travel chaos resulting from airspace closures and rerouted flights because of the war in the Middle East.

However, the ICC said on Wednesday it “rejects any suggestion that these decisions have been driven by anything other than safety, feasibility and welfare”.

“We understand that players, coaches, support staff and their families who have completed their ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026 campaigns are anxious to return home,” it said in a statement.

Cricket West Indies said on Tuesday its squad had waited nine days for a charter flight that was “repeatedly delayed”, calling the uncertainty “increasingly distressing”.

West Indies ‌players were leaving India on commercial flights in batches 10 days after their scheduled departure, which led to frustrated players airing their thoughts in social media posts.

The ICC said nine West Indies players and staff members were already travelling to the Caribbean, with the remaining 16 booked on flights departing India within 24 hours.

Indian media reported that a charter flight for the West Indies and South ⁠Africa Twenty20 World Cup teams scheduled to fly to Johannesburg before continuing on to Antigua was cancelled earlier on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, South Africa, who have been stranded in ⁠India since March 4, will begin to fly home on Wednesday, with the entire contingent ⁠departing in the next 36 hours, the ICC said.

England flew home ‌less than two days after being beaten in the semifinals, prompting criticism of the ICC from the South African and West Indian camps.

Darren Sammy, head coach of West Indies, began venting his frustration on social media on the fifth day since his team’s exit from the T20 World Cup.

“I just wanna go home,” he wrote on X, followed by another tweet requesting an update after being left in the dark for five days.

Three days after South Africa were knocked out, in the first semifinal, their players Quinton De Kock and David Miller said the team had heard nothing from the ICC regarding their departure while England, who were eliminated a day later in the second semifinal had already left.

“England are leaving before us somehow?! Strange how different teams have more pull than others,” De Kock wrote in an Instagram story.

Miller, commenting on a post announcing England’s departure, said: “It doesn’t take the ICC long to organise England charter. WI have been waiting for 7 days for a charter and SA coming on 4 days now. And yet we still wait.”

The ICC said the criticism was “incorrect” and that there was no comparison between arrangements for South Africa and the West Indies and those made for England, “which arose from separate circumstances, routing options and different travel conditions”.

“Throughout this period, the ICC’s overriding ⁠priority has been the safety and welfare of everyone affected,” the sport’s global governing body said.

“We will not move people until we are satisfied that the travel ‌solution in place is safe, and that commitment will not change.”