IADL opposes the removal of ICC prosecutor Karim Khan

THE IADL FIRMLY OPPOSES THE REMOVAL OF THE ICC PROSECUTOR KARIM KHAN AND URGES THE ASP TO ACCEPT THE JUDGES’ PANEL’S UNANIMOUS DECISION REJECTING ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AND CLOSE THE MATTER.

1. 1. The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (‘IADL’), an international organization of jurists, founded in 1946 and granted Consultative II status by ECOSOC in 1969, has been involved with the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) from its inception, starting with the PrepComs at UNHQ in 1997.
   2. We note that the ASP’s Bureau is convening a Special Session of the ASP, open only to States Parties, on 24 July 2026 at UN Headquarters in New York. The purpose is to conduct disciplinary proceedings against Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan.   The basis is allegations of sexual misconduct, involving an OTP employee.  Prosecutor Khan has consistently denied all allegations.These allegations surfaced in May 2024, during the time period that the OTP was preparing its application for arrest warrants in the Palestine “situation,” for Israeli officials Netanyahu and Gallant.
   3.  The Special Session is taking place after almost two years of internal and external investigations by the ICC’s Internal Oversight Mechanism (‘IOM’) and the U.N.’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (‘OIOS’), which culminated in a judicial finding by an independent ad hoc Judges’ Panel.  In March 2026, the Judges’ Panel, composed of three judges, unanimously concluded that the facts presented in the UN investigation did not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the relevant legal framework. They applied the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

      The Judges’ Panel’s unanimous decision should have marked the end of the matter – full stop.  But it did not.  In early June 2026, the ASP’s Bureau, in a split vote, [1] suspended Prosecutor Khan, pending final approval by the ASP.

      The IADL fails to understand why a majority of the ASP’s Bureau, which is a political body of States Parties, rejected the legal conclusions of an independent judicial body which it had established.  The Bureau’s disregard for the Judges’ decision undermines the fundamental principle of independence of the judiciary, which is found in the Rome Statute, Article 40 and in other human rights instruments and UN Resolutions.  By doing so, it also erodes the integrity and legitimacy of the ICC.The Bureau’s lack of deference to the judicial decision also fortifies the perception that its decision to remove Prosecutor Khan was politically motivated, serving the interests particularly of two States that are not Parties to the Rome Statute:  the US and Israel. 

      Both voted against the creation of the ICC and have – for the last two decades – actively worked to undermine the principles of fairness and application of the rule of law to all States Parties in the United Nations.  For example, the US has unsigned the Rome Statute, passed legislation to protect its military from the ICC’s jurisdiction and imposed a sanctions regime on ICC judges and prosecutors in the Afghanistan and Palestine “situations” whose decisions hold the US accountable for crimes under international law.

      It is also no secret that Israel has interfered with and attempted to stop the ICC’s investigations into allegations of Israel’s crimes in Palestine since 2015. Threats and surveillance by Israel’s Mossad have been reported against the former Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who opened a preliminary examination into Israel’s war crimes in Palestine.

      In November 2025, a year after the ICC had issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, Israel filed a “Request to Disqualify the Prosecutor” based on his lack of impartiality, under Rome Statute, Article 42(7).    Israel argued that the arrests warrants were motivated by Prosecutor Khan’s desire to deflect from the allegations of sexual misconduct which surfaced at the time of his application for the warrants in May 2024.

   4. Israel has consistently used the legal process in this case for its own political ends to avoid prosecution of its government officials, notwithstanding the ICC’s rejection of its requests on jurisdictional and admissibility grounds. Hence, the timing of the sexual misconduct allegations with the preparations for the OTP’s application for arrest warrants raises the question of whether the two events were mere coincidence, or another strategy by Israel to immunize its leadership from prosecution.
   5. WHAT IS TO BE DONE 

      The IADL respectfully urges that the ASP vote to accept the Judges’ Panel’s unanimous decision and the matter be closed.  The IADL is firmly opposed to the removal of the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan. 

12 July 2026

[1] Middle East Eye reports that the Bureau vote was 14 in favor of suspension; 4 against; and 2 abstentions. In favor:  Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Ecuador, Finland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, New Zealand, Poland, Slovenia, South Korea and Switzerland; against:  Kenya, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Uganda; abstentions: Bolivia, Bosnia and South Africa.