(SeaPRwire) –   The International Criminal Court’s Chief Prosecutor—who leveled charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Israel’s prime minister and former defense minister—is now under disciplinary proceedings due to sexual misconduct allegations.

Following an over year-long investigation into claims that Karim Khan had sexual misconduct with a subordinate employee, the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) voted to move forward with disciplinary action against Khan, as per Reuters.

Per The New York Times, the accuser disclosed her sexual contact with Khan to her husband and multiple colleagues in April 2024. When colleagues confronted Khan in May, a witness quoted in the judges’ report stated that Khan “grabbed the ‘lifeline’ of an alternative story when another present colleague mentioned he ‘wondered if Mossad was involved behind the scenes.’”

Only weeks after that, Khan issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. In February 2025, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Khan in reaction to the war crimes warrants targeting the Israeli leaders.

Eugene Kontorovich, a George Mason University professor, told Digital that Khan’s “specific blame of Mossad for his issues indicates he is deeply compromised, and the investigation he initiated… would be thrown out with extreme prejudice in any standard legal system.”

He added that this was a sign of “how broken” the ICC is, given “that such a politicized probe is permitted to continue.”

The disciplinary step came when 15 member states voted to proceed with disciplining Khan, while four voted against and two abstained. During the meeting, officials from the prosecutors’ office read a letter stating they did not support Khan staying in his role as chief prosecutor.

Per The New York Times, the vote marked a shift from the earlier consensus of three judges who concluded last month there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the allegations against Khan “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The judges relied on a U.N. investigation by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which uncovered over 5,000 pages of evidence. Though the U.N. report found Khan had “non-consensual sexual contact” with the employee, the judges’ report stated no misconduct was proven.

In a press statement, the Association of International Criminal Law Prosecutors (AICLP) pointed out “structural flaws” exposed by the proceedings against Khan.

These include an Independent Oversight Mechanism whose procedures were “not up to the task” when it closed an investigation into the assault after the accuser “refused to file a formal complaint” citing fear of retaliation. The AICLP argued: “The Court cannot credibly prosecute the most serious crimes against people while allowing a culture where its own staff are not properly protected.”

The AICLP was further worried by Khan’s alleged retaliation against staff who backed the accuser. The group wrote: “We note that the standard for being fit to lead the world’s top international criminal prosecution office isn’t just the lack of proven misconduct beyond reasonable doubt. It also involves the ability to earn the trust of the institution’s own staff—and based on the evidence now before the Assembly of States Parties, that trust seems deeply and publicly broken.”

The AICLP holds that “a quick, principled, and transparent resolution is not only fair to those directly involved but also necessary to restore the operational integrity of an Office that international criminal justice relies on.”

Before the Bureau announced its decision to take disciplinary action against Khan, the ICC referred Digital to a press release where the ASP President “expressed concern about recent media coverage of the ongoing disciplinary process involving the ICC’s Prosecutor.” The ASP President urged “proper respect for the privacy and rights of all involved parties, as well as the integrity of the ongoing process.”

Peter Gallo, a former OIOS investigator, told Digital: “Attempting to shift attention from the allegation’s facts by blaming Israel shows the clear anti-Israel bias present, which turns the ICC into a political warfare tool instead of a court of justice.”

Gallo observed that “the judge panel seems fixated on the lack of evidence to meet the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ standard” and asked why “a specific international civil servant should face an unreasonably high proof standard when lower-ranking staff do not.”

The ICC did not answer follow-up questions about whether investigations into Gallant and Netanyahu would continue if Khan is removed from office.

The OIOS did not reply to Digital’s request for comment on its report.

Reuters contributed to this report.