The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, faces a precarious future as he seeks to return to his duties following an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct. A three-judge panel recently determined that a United Nations-led inquiry into the claims was inconclusive, potentially clearing the way for his reinstatement. However, the final decision remains with the Assembly of States Parties, the court’s oversight body, which is currently navigating the unprecedented nature of these proceedings.
The Legal Status of the Prosecutor
Karim Khan, a British barrister, has been absent from his role since May 2025, when he temporarily stepped down to allow for an investigation by the United Nations’ Office of Internal Oversight Services. According to reports viewed by the Associated Press, the U.N. report alleged that Khan engaged in nonconsensual sexual contact with a female aide at his office, his private residence, and while on mission.
Khan has consistently and firmly denied these allegations. Through his legal counsel, he maintains that he did not engage in any inappropriate conduct, whether sexual or otherwise, and explicitly denies both nonconsensual contact and the existence of any consensual relationship with the complainant. The three-judge panel appointed to assess the U.N.’s findings concluded that the evidence presented was not definitive, according to the Associated Press.
The Role of the Assembly of States Parties
Because the judicial panel’s assessment was not conclusive, the authority to decide Khan’s fate has shifted to the Assembly of States Parties. This body is the ICC’s governing and legislative organ, composed of representatives from member states.
The process has been complicated by significant internal and external pressures. The Associated Press reports that the Assembly moved to extend the investigation, signaling the difficulty of managing a process that has generated unrest among ICC staff. As of June 2026, the court has declined to provide further public comments on the ongoing disciplinary proceedings.
International Perspectives on the Inquiry
The handling of these allegations has drawn attention from the international community, with various nations monitoring how the court addresses internal accountability. For example, Norway’s deputy foreign minister has publicly stated that ICC member states should respect the report produced by the judges, according to Middle East Eye.
This case represents a significant test for the ICC’s internal oversight mechanisms. While the judicial panel has opened a path for the prosecutor to potentially resume his work, the final decision rests on the Assembly of States Parties’ ability to reconcile the findings of the U.N. oversight service with the conclusions of the court’s own appointed judges. The court continues to function while it manages this high-profile disciplinary process.