Tomorrow marks a full year since member states of the International Criminal Court announced an external investigation into allegations that the court’s senior prosecutor had sexually assaulted a member of his staff.
Six months into the investigation by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services, Karim Khan KC announced that he would take leave of absence from his post until it was over. Recent developments suggest that his deputies will be minding the shop for longer than he might have expected.
New readers start here
My most recent piece for A Lawyer Writes was published shortly before Khan, a member of the English bar, stepped aside. This was how it began:
Through his lawyers at Carter-Ruck, Khan has repeatedly and categorically denied having “harassed or mistreated any individual, or having misused his position or authority, or engaged in any conduct that could be interpreted as coercive, exploitative, or professionally inappropriate”.
Latest developments
Although the UN investigation is confidential, there have been a number in-depth reports since Khan stood aside.
-
7 June: In a detailed account for the Observer, Chloe Hadjimatheou reports “concern in western capitals” that Khan may have announced prematurely that he was seeking warrants for the arrest of the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then defence minister Yoav Gallant in order to stop allegations about his own behaviour from becoming public.
-
28 August: The Guardian reports that a woman who worked for Khan earlier in his career told UN investigators he had behaved inappropriately, subjecting her to unwanted sexual advances, abusing his authority over her and repeatedly trying to pressure her into sexual activity.
-
10 October: The Dutch newspaper NRC publishes a highly detailed account of the allegations against Khan, based on an interview with his alleged victim’s husband and 30 other sources — several of them quoted by name. It says its “investigation shows how an institution that stands firmly for justice and equality before the law violates those values in its own workplace”.
-
29 October: The Times publishes a further detailed account of the woman’s allegations, based on a new interview with her husband and others.
-
7 November: A report in the Guardian says that private intelligence firms were commissioned by Qatar to investigate the alleged victim. Investigators had sought to establish connections between the complainant and Israel, it said, but no such evidence was found.
-
7 November: the Telegraph publishes a comment piece in which I consider what interest Qatar might have had in undermining the UN investigation. If the woman’s allegations are true, I conclude, she has been violated not just by her attacker but by those who have a political interest in restoring him to power.
-
9 November: The Mail on Sunday floats the idea that the allegations are part of a sophisticated operation by the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad to destroy the prosecutor and “torpedo the controversial arrest warrants”. It says “such claims have angered his alleged victim, whose friends point out that she is a Muslim who strongly supported the ICC’s investigation into Israel’s leaders”. In a statement to the newspaper, she says: “I spent six months in hiding, away from my child. Since returning, I barely leave my home. My husband still does not want me to be near the windows or to answer the front door.”
In court
Meanwhile, the legal process rumbles on. Last month, the court’s pre-trial chamber refused Israel permission to appeal against the decision it announced in July not to withdraw the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant that it had issued last November. Prosecutors have been told that any future requests for arrest warrants should not be made public.