The Assembly of States Parties dismisses the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor, Karim Khan

The result of the vote, which was due to be officially communicated after 23:30 (CET), made Khan the first ICC chief prosecutor to be dismissed by the Assembly of States Parties since the creation of the court, founded in 1998 and operational since 2002, headquartered in The Hague. The tally, of 82 votes in favor out of 125 States Parties, represents "just under two thirds" of the total, according to diplomatic sources in New York, and far exceeds the qualified majority needed for removal from office.

What's new since July 24

Before the results were released, on Wednesday, July 23, it was learned that the ASP plenary was leaning toward dismissal. The most relevant development is the specificity of the count: 82 States Parties, out of a total of 125, backed Khan's removal. The figure exceeds by 19 votes the minimum of 63 required and approaches the two-thirds threshold of the court's total membership.

Background of the suspension and the investigation

Alongside the count, the update incorporates new diplomatic statements. The United States government, through Secretary of State Marco Rubio, had threatened to "dismantle" the ICC "brick by brick" and to impose "financial and political consequences" on countries that continue to support the court. After learning of the decision, State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott stated on the social network X: "Es bueno que se haya ido, pero no es más que una pequeña ruedecilla en esta institución irremediablemente corrupta". Pigott added: "El resultado de hoy no tendrá ningún efecto sobre los planes de Estados Unidos de destruir la CPI".

The Israeli delegation to the UN reacted immediately, stating that Khan "creyó que el mundo ignoraría las graves acusaciones de conducta sexual en su contra si iniciaba una caza de brujas política contra Israel y emitía una orden de arresto políticamente motivada contra el primer ministro Netanyahu" and added: "Se equivocó", according to Ambassador Danny Dahon. The delegation also accused Khan of having attempted to distract attention from the charges against him with "una orden de arresto políticamente motivada contra el primer ministro Netanyahu".

Khan's defense team reacted swiftly. His lawyers reiterated that, according to the assessment of the three judges of the court itself, "no se ha demostrado ninguna falta de conducta ni incumplimiento de los deberes". The lawyers recalled that an 85-page opinion issued by three ICC magistrates unanimously concluded that the findings of the UN commission "no constituyen falta de conducta ni incumplimiento de los deberes en el sentido del marco jurídico aplicable" and that the judges were "obligados a concluir que, sobre la base del material disponible, no existen pruebas suficientes para sustentar una constatación de falta de conducta, medida con el estándar de prueba 'más allá de toda duda razonable'".

The investigation of the three ICC judges

Background of the suspension and the investigation

Khan, 56, served as ICC chief prosecutor from 2021. In May 2025, he decided to temporarily step aside from his post after allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct with a subordinate became known, incidents that reportedly occurred between 2023 and 2024. The prosecutor has consistently rejected the allegations and described them as part of a conspiracy against him, in retaliation for the investigations he was leading against representatives of the Israeli government.

Khan's legacy: the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Putin

In early June, the ASP presidency, composed of representatives of 21 States, decided to dismiss Khan "with immediate effect from his duties, until the Assembly of States Parties, as the competent decision-making body, adopts a definitive decision." The internal investigation was carried out by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which delivered in December 2025 a non-public report of which various international media cited extracts.

According to press reports cited by The Associated Press, the UN investigation concluded that there was evidence that Khan engaged in "contacto sexual no consensuado con (la empleada) en su oficina, en su residencia privada y durante viajes de servicio". The Guardian reported that the investigation found "indicios de que" Khan's conduct toward the woman "se fue intensificando con el tiempo, lo que desembocó en que mantuviera contacto sexual no consensuado con ella".

International repercussions and the future of the court

The woman, identified only as Sarah, broke her silence in an interview with CNN. "Cuando alguien cree que la otra persona está durmiendo, eso nunca puede ser consentido", she stated. Elsewhere in the interview she added: "Dada una diferencia de poder tan grande, es imposible que sea consentido". Sarah explained that Khan "no era solo su jefe, sino el 'jefe de todos'". Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reported that the assistant had told UN officials that Khan sexually harassed her over several months and ultimately forced her to have sexual relations.

Khan categorically denies the facts. In a statement, he maintained that he has not "acosado ni maltratado a nadie, ni ha abusado de su posición o autoridad, ni se ha comportado de manera alguna que pueda interpretarse como coercitiva, explotadora o profesionalmente inapropiada". Throughout the process, the British prosecutor accused Israel of being behind the complaints to undermine the legitimacy of his investigations.

The investigation of the three ICC judges

Based on the OIOS inquiry, three ICC judges prepared an 85-page opinion in which, unanimously, they concluded that the findings of the UN commission "no constituyen falta de conducta ni incumplimiento de los deberes en el sentido del marco jurídico aplicable". The magistrates were "obligados a concluir que, sobre la base del material disponible, no existen pruebas suficientes para sustentar una constatación de falta de conducta, medida con el estándar de prueba 'más allá de toda duda razonable'".

According to the assessment gathered by the defense, the judges also considered that the UN investigation "no logró descubrir dónde está la verdad" and left "numerosas cuestiones de fondo sin resolver". The OIOS inquiry itself remained confidential, but extracts published by various international media have fueled an intense debate about procedural safeguards and the independence of the court.

Despite these judicial conclusions, the recommendation that the commission itself forwarded to the ASP urged it to "considerar las medidas apropiadas sobre la base de las pruebas". In a statement, the Assembly maintained that the inquiries had "identificado pruebas" that constituted "una base fáctica" for the alleged victim's accusations against Khan.

Khan's legacy: the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Putin

Khan is known for having driven some of the most controversial decisions in the ICC's recent history. In 2023 he requested an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin for the illegal deportation of Ukrainian minors. In late 2024, the court issued arrest warrants for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Galant.

These decisions provoked a strong reaction from Israel and the United States. Washington imposed sanctions on Khan and other ICC officials, and then-Secretary of State Marco Rubio published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal titled "Why We Want to Destroy the ICC." The US State Department stated that Washington seeks to "systematically neutralize the ability of the court headquartered in The Hague to target American soldiers or officials, or otherwise threaten American sovereignty" and that "the attacks do not come with bullets or rockets, but with legal texts, treaties, and the power of so-called international law."

International repercussions and the future of the court

The ASP's decision comes amid a context of growing political pressure against the ICC. This year, the United States has repeatedly threatened sanctions against countries that cooperate with the court. US President Donald Trump publicly backed the campaign against the ICC, describing it as an institution that "ataca a nuestro país". Meanwhile, Venezuelan chancellor Félix Plasencia accused the court of carrying out a "persecución del pueblo venezolano".

International law scholar Kai Ambos stated in an interview with Spiegel that, faced with a court of universal ambition like the ICC, "no existe alternativa". Ambos considered that Khan's dismissal would ultimately demonstrate that "los mecanismos de control de la CPI funcionan". The Assembly recalled in its statement that the vote reflects the "grave falta de conducta y la violación grave de sus deberes oficiales" committed by the chief prosecutor.

The ICC clarified that Khan's removal does not affect the validity of the arrest warrants already issued, including those against Netanyahu, Galant, and Putin, nor against the Hamas leaders. The court will continue to operate under the interim direction of its deputy prosecutors while a new chief prosecutor is appointed, a process that could take several months.