Sareta Ashraph, lead counsel for Karim Khan, says the ICC’s governing body ignored the unanimous findings of the independent judicial panel it appointed.
(CNN pic) KUALA LUMPUR: Can the International Criminal Court (ICC) ignore the conclusions of the very judges it appointed to examine allegations against its chief prosecutor? That question now lies at the heart of an extraordinary dispute over the future of Karim Khan, the British barrister whose decision to seek arrest warrants against Israeli leaders thrust the world’s permanent international criminal court into the geopolitical crossfire over Gaza.
In written responses to FMT, Khan’s lead counsel, New York-based lawyer Sareta Ashraph, argues the answer is an emphatic no.
She says the court’s governing body abandoned the findings of three eminent judges after they unanimously concluded that the evidence did not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the ICC’s legal framework.
Suspended ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan denies all allegations of sexual misconduct and says the disciplinary process against him has failed to follow due process.
(EPA Images pic) For Ashraph, this is no longer simply about allegations of sexual misconduct.
It is about whether an institution founded on the rule of law is prepared to disregard its own legal process when the outcome proves inconvenient.
A court built on law The ICC prosecutes individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.
The International Criminal Court’s member states will decide on July 24 whether Karim Khan should remain chief prosecutor.
(EPA Images pic) Its chief prosecutor occupies one of the most powerful legal offices in the world, deciding which atrocities merit international prosecution and which political leaders may face justice in The Hague.
That is why the disciplinary proceedings against Khan carry consequences far beyond one individual.
The outcome will help define how the court applies the rule of law to itself.
Three judges, one conclusion The dispute centres on two very different institutions within the ICC.
The first was an independent judicial panel established by the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties, the court’s governing body, to examine whether Khan had committed misconduct.
The second is the bureau itself, a group of diplomats elected by ICC member states to oversee the assembly’s work between its annual sessions.
Ashraph says the conflict began when those two bodies reached different conclusions.
The judicial panel was chaired by Justice Seymour Panton, a judge of the United Nations International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and former president of Jamaica’s Court of Appeal.
He was joined by Justice Paul Lemmens, formerly Belgium’s judge at the European Court of Human Rights, and Justice Bess Nkabinde Theron of South Africa’s Constitutional Court.
Over three months, the judges examined the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services investigation, reviewed more than 5,000 pages of evidence and considered witness statements, messages and supporting documents.
Their conclusion was unanimous.
The evidence, they found, did not establish misconduct or breach of duty by Khan under the applicable legal framework.
Ashraph believes that should have ended the matter.
“The unanimous legal determination of the independent judicial panel should have marked the end of the matter,” she told FMT.....
