An investigation reveals the disturbing background behind the allegations of harassment against the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. While Karim Khan defends himself, the hand of Qatar emerges, accused of using money to guide the decisions of global organizations and to protect its own interests, even at the cost of undermining the credibility of international justice.
As revealed by the Guardianthe Qatari government allegedly paid large sums of money to a London-based private intelligence firm to orchestrate a delegitimization campaign against the woman who accused International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Karim Khan of sexual harassment. Two structures specialized in confidential operations, the Highgate and another satellite organization, allegedly collected personal information on the alleged victim and his family members, including his minor son. In documents obtained by the British newspaper, Highgate executives admit to having acted on behalf of a “client country” identified in internal files as “Country Q”, a formula which, according to several sources, clearly indicates Doha. The private investigators were even instructed never to mention Qatar in their written reports, so as not to jeopardize the operation’s coverage.
The group allegedly attempted to create an artificial link between the accuser and the State of Israelwith the aim of discrediting his reputation and insinuating the idea of a conspiracy against Khan. The woman, interviewed by the Guardian, defined the organisation’s actions as “disturbing” and “devastating”, stating that the idea that “private intelligence companies were ordered to persecute me is as incomprehensible as it is heartbreaking”. Highgate, for its part, denies any wrongdoing, but the whole affair highlights the vulnerability of international judicial institutions in the face of interference from foreign powers.
The main accuser is an internal lawyer at the ICC who claims she was subjected to coercive sexual behavior by Khan between 2023 and 2024. A few months later, in August 2025, a second woman — who asked to remain anonymous — filed a similar complaint. The latter told the Guardian that Khan repeatedly harassed her during her internship in The Hague in 2009, describing “relentless” and abusive conduct. According to the testimony, the prosecutor exploited his position to force her to go to his private home, where she was touched and kissed against her will, then attempted to convince her to make new physical contacts.
Disciplinary investigation initiated against Khaninitially limited to the first complaint, was expanded to also include the second testimony. But the prosecutor’s subsequent behavior raised new doubts. The Wall Street Journal recalled that Khan announced the request for arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant just three weeks after the first allegations of harassment against him were published. A coincidence which, according to several analysts, suggests an attempt to distract public opinion and recover political credibility, presenting itself as the symbol of inflexible justice against Israel. For some observers, it is a strategy as cynical as it is revealing: Khan, overwhelmed by the accusations and with his reputation compromised, would have sought refuge behind the mask of ideological justicialism, hitting a politically sensitive target to please his sponsors and appease the pressure coming from the Arab world. The teacher Anne Bayefskydirector of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices, commented to Arutz Sheva – Israel National News that «Khan seems to be trying to save himself by projecting onto international law the same perverse and anti-Semitic pattern of thought that has characterized many of his public acts».
In this framework, Qatar appears as the true hidden director. Doha has for years used a combination of financing, diplomatic corruption and influence operations to bolster its image and protect the armed groups it supports, including Hamas. Its ability to infiltrate international organizations — from UN agencies to some human rights NGOs — allows it to steer agendas and decisions, often at the expense of transparency and neutrality. The Khan case, with the hidden payments to a British company charged with discrediting the victims, represents an emblematic example. The prosecutor, now temporarily suspended from his position, continues to proclaim his innocence. His legal team maintains that “he has never committed any form of harassment” and that the documentation “disproves the allegations”. However, Khan’s defense is not enough to dispel the suspicion of a system of power in which international justice appears manipulated by political and financial interests, where even the tribunal in The Hague can become an instrument of propaganda.
Behind the image of the impartial magistrate, there emerges that of an ambiguous official, suspended between personal ambition, ethical vulnerability and opaque relationships with foreign governments. And behind him, a country like the Qatarwhich thanks to its energy wealth and a network of relationships built with money and favors, now seems able to control not only the squares of diplomacy, but also the halls of international justice. An inconvenient truth that calls into question the very credibility of the International Criminal Court and raises an inevitable question: Who really judges whom, in the great theater of global justice?
