Ex-ICC Prosecutor Khan to Appeal Dismissal, Citing Unfair Procedure

Former International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan declared on Friday that the Assembly of States Parties to the tribunal removed him through a process that violated his fundamental rights. He announced his intention to challenge the decision through all available legal avenues.

“

The decision is not supported by any legal conclusion or duly substantiated finding that the British jurist engaged in misconduct or failed to fulfill his obligations as prosecutor.

Khan's legal team stated that the decision lacks any legal conclusion or sound reasoning to support the claim that the British jurist engaged in misconduct or failed to fulfill his duties. They emphasized that Khan has consistently denied the accusations of sexual misconduct made by a former employee since the beginning of the investigation.

The disciplinary proceedings against Khan began after an investigation by the UN's Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) into allegations by a former collaborator. This collaborator accused Khan of non-consensual sexual contact during official travel and within prosecutor's office facilities between March 2023 and April 2024.

“

Khan will challenge the legality and fairness of the decision through all available legal mechanisms and expressly reserves all his rights.

Khan's legal team criticized the Assembly for disregarding the findings of an independent legal panel appointed by the Assembly's Bureau. This panel had unanimously concluded that the OIOS investigation did not establish misconduct meeting the legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Khan asserted that the vote did not align with the evidence or the conclusions of the sole judicial decision on the matter.

“

Khan has denied the accusations of sexual misconduct from the beginning and continues to reject them.

The defense also cited several procedural irregularities, including the Bureau ignoring the judicial panel's opinion, Khan being denied the opportunity to present his case or participate in the dismissal session, his lawyers being excluded, and procedural rules being altered mid-case. They argued that these combined defects rendered the dismissal unfair and lacking a proper hearing, contradicting the findings of independent judges.

“

The vote does not follow either the evidence or the conclusions of the only judicial decision made on this matter.