Following an outsourced investigation, and a legal assessment by a panel of judges, as recounted in Justice Info<\/a>, leaks led to apparently clear-cut statements: \u201cICC prosecutor cleared of all charges\u201d, which dominated social media during the weekend of March 22, based on a partial summary in Middle East Eye<\/a> of the leaked judges\u2019 assessment; the investigation was also described as a \u201cwitch-hunt\u201d <\/a>by one UN Special Rapporteur, while another, Francesca Albanese, called on<\/a> \u201cthose who stand for justice\u201d to ensure any attempt to remove the prosecutor must fail. Her missive on X has had 236,000 views and been liked by 14,000. The States Parties bureau president was forced to issue a rare press statement<\/a> expressing \u201cconcern\u201d and stressing that the disciplinary process \u201cis ongoing and remains confidential\u201d and that \u201c[n]o decisions have been taken, and no weight should be given to or conclusions drawn from media speculations\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The following week, the balance was tipped in the other direction by a report<\/a> in the New York Times, based on the leaked judges\u2019 report had a different assessment: \u201cThe U.N. investigators found evidence that Mr. Khan engaged in \u201cnon-consensual sexual contact\u201d with a woman on his staff\u201d. See-sawing commentary has continued, with associations and individuals lining up to express their fears either that the project of international criminal justice represented by the ICC would be irreparably damaged by the prosecutor staying, or by states forcing him out. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the heart of the matter is fairness in the process set up by the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) \u2013 a 21-member body representing states, elected by the 125 state members of the court. They are ambassadors, resident in New York or Brussels where the ICC is one matter among many pressing issues, or in The Hague, where the court is likely a larger part of their portfolio. They are elected freely, though behind the scenes negotiations are carried out to ensure regional balance. At the next ICC\u2019s annual meeting, the three-year term of the whole bureau, including of the president Finnish ambassador to Brussels P\u00e4ivi Kaukoranta, will be over. Conforming to informal geographical rotation, the next president, to be elected in December<\/a>, is due to come from Africa. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the case of the allegations against Khan, it was the bureau\u2019s president who decided<\/a> to open the current investigation in November 2024 and who entrusted it to UN\u2019s oversight investigators, after the matter had been closed by the courts\u2019 own internal oversight mechanism. The court itself has \u2013 afterwards \u2013 adopted a new methodology<\/a> governing investigations into alleged misconduct by its highest officials. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the most recent meetings of the bureau, on April 1 and 8, it has been reported, via media leaks<\/a>, that four African states disagreed with a decision that the investigation needed to be continued, because \u201csome form of misconduct\u201d may have occurred. UK barrister Sareta Ashraph, engaged since January 2026 to advise Khan on his inputs into the investigation, wrote in Aljazeera<\/a> of the dangers \u201c[s]hould the bureau, a political entity, disregard the rigorous analysis and unanimous conclusion of the eminent judicial panel\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lately, diplomatic sources have confirmed to Justice Info that both the prosecutor and the complainant have been provided with redacted versions of the investigation \u2013 5,000 pages \u2013 and of the judges\u2019 report \u2013 85 pages \u2013 and invited to make submissions by May 8. Once those have been examined, the bureau should decide by June 8 on how to characterise the allegations: nothing, lesser misconduct or serious misconduct. In the latter case, the bureau could recommend that the full ASP be convened to decide on the prosecutor\u2019s future. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The variety of commentary from the ICC-adjacent community is couched in lawyerly terms and is focused on fairness. It includes a discussion on whether the standard of proof used by each body in the process has been correct. The terms of reference from the bureau to the judges\u2019 panel seen by your correspondent clearly includes reference to the \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d criteria. But the UN OIOS<\/a>, which conducted the investigation, indicates in its manual for practitioners <\/a>a different standard for its investigations: \u201cClear and convincing proof requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt \u2013 it means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court staff themselves are seeking to have their say, albeit anonymously. Earlier this month an anonymous message was circulated<\/a> from \u201cconcerned members\u201d of the office of the prosecutor stating that staff feared Khan\u2019s potential return. In particular, they worry that there could be retaliation against those who gave evidence to the investigators. Another letter circulated, from \u201cthe silent majority\u201d of staff in the office, who said they have \u201crefrained from going to the media to express any comment out of full respect for the process\u201d. Asserting that \u201cthe majority of staff appreciates the prosecutor for his hard work and his leadership which yielded unprecedented successes in the work of the office in the past years\u201d, they condemned \u201cexternal and politicized statements that aim to influence the independence and the objectivity of a judicial process under the disguise of freedom of expression\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\t US academic professor Milena Sterio, from the American Branch of the International Law Association, describes the process as \u201ca mess\u201d and \u201ccontroversial to say the least\u201d. Speaking as a member of the committee which released<\/a> this statement, Sterio expressed concern that the prosecutor will now have \u201csome of the names of individuals employed at his own office who have complained about him\u201d. This may \u201cbe devastating to individuals who in the future have legitimate complaints, whether it be sexual harassment, or the workplace culture\u201d. Within defence circles, there have also been contrasting views. One, expressed by Micheal Karnavas, last defending Paul Gicheru<\/a> from allegations of witness interference in the ICC Kenya cases, suggests<\/a> that \u201cconduct at the highest levels of an institution \u2013 even where it does not meet a criminal threshold \u2013 may nonetheless bear directly on its functioning, its reputation, and its ability to command trust\u201d and that \u201cinstitutional credibility isn\u2019t maintained by process alone\u201d. But rather needs clear standards and \u201cthe willingness to enforce them confidently, transparently, and [sic] unhesitantly\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cyril Laucci, last seen defending Al Kushayb<\/a> at the court, says<\/a> whether one likes Khan or not, \u201cwhatever the prosecutor did or did not do, the handling of the allegations has been deeply unsatisfactory. It leaves a bitter taste for those concerned with the rights of victims, including victims of sexual violence and abuse of power, as well as for those committed to the rights of the defence, the presumption of innocence, and the guarantees of a fair trial. Above all, it profoundly undermines confidence in the independence of the Court\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The NGO community is similarly split. The FIDH representative in The Hague, Danya Chaikel has been widely quoted<\/a>. She points out that the judges\u2019 report was \u201cnot an exoneration\u201d of Khan, that the panel instead established \u201cmany unresolved factual disputes\u201d. Her organisation and Women\u2019s initiatives for Gender Justice have lobbied specifically on the issue of the standard of proof at which these matters should be judged. Their paper argues<\/a> that a victim-centred approach \u201cdemands heightened scrutiny and rigorous safeguards to ensure a watertight procedure that protects both the elected official and the complainant\u201d. But Khan\u2019s lawyer Ashraph \u2013 herself a gender expert and co-founder of the Atlas network of women lawyers \u2013 argues<\/a> that the process had been \u201cgender-competent\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A statement by the coalition of NGOs from Francophone Africa for the ICC has also been addressed to the ASP bureau, insisting on the integrity of the process. Ali Ouattara,\u00a0the coordinator, told Justice Info that the role of the panel \u201ccomposed of independent judges, should be respected\u201d. \u201cWe must be frank: the court is going through a delicate period<\/a>. There are clear disagreements, in particular between some western states with the independent exercise of discretionary power by prosecutor Khan\u201d, that could \u201cincrease the risk that judicial processes could be seen as influenced or contested for political reasons\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFor years, he adds, persistent criticism \u2013 particularly from African states and commentators \u2013 accused the ICC of focusing disproportionately on Africa, thereby reinforcing the impression that it was a \u2018court for Africans\u2019. Under Khan\u2019s leadership, this narrative has been seriously challenged.\u201d \u201cIn these circumstances, yes, the ICC would risk losing much of its credibility if prosecutor Khan were to be removed from office by political leaders, given the unanimous ruling handed down by highly respected judges. Not because it has been confronted with serious allegations, but because [the ICC] has failed to deal with them in a manner consistent with the rule of law that it is supposed to uphold\u201d, wraps up Ouattara.<\/p>\n\n\nA decision by June 8?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Opposing camps formed<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A controversial \u201cmess\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Similarly, the Association of International Law Criminal Prosecutors<\/a> which represents those who either have worked or are working for the ICC, has been decrying<\/a> the \u201cstructural deficiencies this process has exposed\u201d, resulting in a process \u201cin which the facts were never fully determined\u201d. They express \u201cgravely concern\u201d about \u201creports that the prosecutor, prior to taking leave, engaged in conduct characterised by UN investigators as retaliatory toward staff supportive of the complainant\u201d and call on the court to overall its investigative structure, underlining that \u201cthe Court cannot credibly prosecute the gravest crimes against persons while tolerating a culture in which its own staff are inadequately protected\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u201cA bitter taste\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Split in the NGO community<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Karim](\"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/Karim-Khan-ICC-Paris_@Dimitar-Dilkoff-AFP-540x360.jpg\")
<\/div><\/a>\r\n\t\t\t