Filling the Information Gap: Q&A on ICC Prosecutor Disciplinary Proceedings
The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ), Center for Truth & Justice, Global Justice Center, REDRESS, and Synergy for Justice have published a joint Q&A on the disciplinary proceedings involving the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan, aimed at providing accessible, publicly sourced, and accurate information on a process that has been obscured by confidentiality and, as a result, mischaracterised in public debate.
In July, the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties (ASP) will convene an unprecedented Special Session where, for the first time in the Court's history, States will be asked to decide whether to remove a sitting ICC Prosecutor from office. That decision must be grounded in an accurate understanding of the statutory framework governing these disciplinary proceedings and the decisions available at each stage of the process.
There is a legitimate public interest in the disciplinary proceedings currently before the ASP. The allegations against the Prosecutor are serious, and the moral and ethical standards required of his position are high. Yet key aspects of the process remain confidential or unpublished, including virtually all procedural documents, key decisions, the main findings of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which conducted the external fact-finding investigation into the allegations, and the main conclusions of the ad hoc Panel of judicial experts, which was mandated to provide advice on the legal characterisation of the facts as established by the OIOS.
In particular, the lack of procedural transparency has made it extremely difficult for the public to follow the proceedings, and has allowed misinterpretations, inaccuracies, and political narratives to fill the information gap, undermining the credibility of the process, damaging public perception of the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, and weakening confidence in the Court's commitment to victim-centred justice. What has received too little attention in the public reporting is the direct harm these narratives have caused to the complainant/alleged victim at the centre of the allegations, whose account has been publicly questioned, instrumentalised, and in some cases summarily dismissed as part of a political agenda, reinforcing the culture of underreporting that the Court itself has long struggled to address.
To address this, we have prepared this Q&A to counter some of those inaccuracies and offer a factual explanation of the process to date. The Q&A covers the allegations, the decisions taken by the ASP Bureau, the role of the OIOS investigation and the ad hoc Panel, the Prosecutor's suspensions, and what the ASP is now tasked with deciding. It also examines the applicable legal framework in depth, including questions of standard of proof and the unresolved question of International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction.