Chief Prosecutor of the World Criminal Court Karim Khan Suspended over Suspicion of Sexual Assault

The allegations were raised in 2024 by a close staff member who accused the British jurist of sexual assault. A United Nations commission had investigated the allegations. The report by this UN commission, submitted in December 2025, has not yet been published by the court. A legal opinion that three judges of the World Criminal Court had submitted on the basis of the investigation is also not public. Nor has this been published.

The Further Procedure

The further procedure is clearly defined: the case is to be referred to the Assembly of States Parties, which comprises all member states of the court. 125 states have signed the court's founding treaty, including all EU states. In this Assembly of States Parties, the final decision is ultimately made as to whether Khan definitively loses his office – he faces removal from office.

The International Criminal Court in The Hague could lose its chief prosecutor. The significance of this step becomes clear from the political importance of the office: as chief prosecutor, Khan obtained arrest warrants against Israeli head of government Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Both countries – Israel, Russia, and also the United States – are not members of the World Criminal Court.

Political Context: Pressure from Washington

The US government has repeatedly put the ICC under pressure, particularly because of the arrest warrant against Netanyahu. The United States imposed sanctions on staff and judges of the World Criminal Court. These tensions between Washington and The Hague form the political backdrop against which Khan's suspension has now been announced.

Khan has headed the prosecution office of the ICC since 2021. In this function, he is responsible, among other things, for the arrest warrants against high-ranking state representatives. The suspension means that Khan may not perform any official duties until the decision of the Assembly of States Parties. The prosecution office of the World Criminal Court thus temporarily loses its leadership at a phase in which several highly politically sensitive proceedings are underway.

It is unclear how quickly the special session of the States Parties will convene. The session should take place as soon as possible, the Presidency said. Until then, the management of the prosecution office lies provisionally with other jurists of the court. A final decision on a possible removal from office is to be made by the States Parties at a special session.

Open Questions regarding the Special Session

The prosecution office of the ICC initially made no further comment on the suspension. The report of the UN commission, which has been available since December 2025, also remains unpublished. Observers in The Hague assess the step by the Presidency as unusually clear: it shows that the States Parties want institutional consequences to follow the allegations quickly, regardless of the outcome of the internal investigations.

In the coming weeks, it will become clear what effects the suspension has on ongoing proceedings. In particular, the proceedings concerning alleged war crimes in Ukraine and the Middle East, which were significantly advanced by Khan's office, could suffer under the vacancy at the top. The International Criminal Court in The Hague could lose its chief prosecutor – and thereby temporarily also part of its political clout.

Khan himself has so far not commented on the formal suspension. He had most recently stated that he wanted to return once the allegations had been clarified. Now the Presidency of the States Parties has withdrawn this clarification from the Assembly of States Parties and effectively moved it forward: the special session is to decide whether the chief prosecutor must go for good.

Significance for the ICC

One thing is certain: Khan's suspension marks the largest personnel crisis in the ICC since its founding. The case also shows that the States Parties – including all EU states – are willing to measure even high-ranking officeholders of the court against clear procedures. A final decision on a possible removal from office is to be made by the States Parties at a special session.