There’s a big problem there International Criminal Court (CPI) after the Wall Street Journal published a story that raises serious questions about the prosecutor’s integrity Karim Ahmad Khanknown for calling for the arrest of the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, while he did not ask for the same measure for their political rival Benny Gantz who when he was part of the War Cabinet signed all the decisions that led to the infamous arrest request signed by Ahmad Khan. The ICC prosecutor had repeatedly assured Western leaders that he would conduct a thorough investigation and told a group of US senators that he would not rush to judgment before engaging with Israel and hearing its side of the story. He seemed to mean it, scheduling preliminary meetings in Israel for May 20. But instead of showing up, Khan appeared on CNN that day to announce that he would seek arrest warrants. Israel was caught off guard and US senators were misled and the ICC was deprived of a real investigation. Many have wondered what caused this sudden change of direction? According to the Wall Street Journal, Khan raised the bar on Israel to save himself and his job after being accused of sexual harassment a few weeks earlier. So was the frontal attack on Israel to divert attention and pressure? The investigations will tell (assuming they will be carried out), but there is certainly the fact that Khan has been praised by left-wing circles, which dominate international legal circles. The ICC remained silent about the harassment allegations for more than five months, until an anonymous Twitter account brought them to light last week.
Who is the victim?
This is a junior member of the prosecutor’s office staff who last April told colleagues that Mr Khan “had repeatedly harassed her”, and everything is reported in a report sent by a person informed of the facts (it is a colleague of the victim), to the Independent Supervisory Mechanism (IOM) of the ICC which the Wall Street Journal was able to consult. The report contains the victim’s accounts of Mr Khan’s alleged non-consensual behaviour, for example: «Locking her in his office and touching her sexually, even putting his hand in her pocket; visiting her in her hotel room in the middle of the night, asking to come in; claiming to have a headache and lying on her hotel bed, touching her sexually.” The whistleblower said he reported the allegations to Mr Khan: “The prosecutor seemed stunned to hear it and expressed confusion about what was happening.” Khan supposedly said, “I’m done, now I’ll have to resign,” but obviously he didn’t. After the interview, again according to the Wall Street Journal, the informant wrote that he «had received threats against his family from Mr. Khan’s wife and pressure from Mr. Khan himself, including the order to leave the country and immediately go to Uganda. The whistleblower writes that he was absent from May 13 to 16, but always insisted that he would comply with HR procedures. On May 20, Mr. Khan stopped his investigation into Israel and declared his plan to issue arrest warrants. The connection between the harassment complaint and Mr. Khan’s warrant decision is speculative based on the above timeline.”
Khan’s defense is unconvincing
Karim Ahmad Khan denied everything: «I can absolutely confirm that there is no truth to the suggestions of misconduct» However, the ICC Independent Monitoring Mechanism acknowledged the incident reported on October 18, mentioning it as the last item on a list of allegations of misconduct in its annual report, with facts that appear very similar to those in the Khan case. Without naming the ICC prosecutor, the IOM report said the alleged victim “refused to lodge a formal complaint with the IOM, even when it was suggested that any investigation could be outsourced to an external entity.” Then the report states that it «refused to explicitly confirm or deny to the IOM the factual basis of what had been reported by the third party to the IOM. Accordingly, the IOM determined that no investigation was necessary at this stage.” Does a lack of denial imply the absence of an investigation? It seems that the victim decided not to retract the accusation, perhaps for fear of retaliation if he continued. The ICC did not respond to requests for comment. Clearly all this raises the need for a thorough investigation. If the allegations made prove true, it would call into question the integrity of Prosecutor Khan, the ICC’s commitment to ensuring a fair trial and the possible involvement of non-professional factors in the request for arrest warrants. Finally, the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced that it has replaced one of the judges tasked with hearing the arrest warrant request against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a decision that could lead to further delays in the case. In May, prosecutors requested arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and three Hamas leaders, arguing there was sufficient evidence to suggest he was involved in a war crime and crime against humanity. Although no timetable has been set, in similar cases the court has taken around three months to decide. The decision has already been postponed due to several legal challenges filed by Israel, which challenged the court’s jurisdiction.
The report of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the ICC
ICC-ASP-23-18-ENG.pdf
@reproduction reserved
