An internal investigation has found that Karim Khan, the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor, engaged in sexual harassment involving a female member of his office staff, according to The New York Times. The confidential report now goes to ICC member states for their consideration, as reported July 8, 2026.

This finding arrives about a month after the ICC's Bureau — a leadership body composed of the President of the Assembly of States Parties and its vice-presidents — suspended Khan pending a broader vote on the misconduct allegations. That suspension was announced in a June 8, 2026 ICC press release and confirmed by Reuters and the New York Times.

The allegations themselves are not recent. They surfaced internally in May 2024, when Khan took leave from the court, as Justice Info reported. The complainant was identified as a female employee in his own office. Throughout the disciplinary process, the ICC kept the accusation confidential — a practice consistent with ICC staff rules for internal misconduct cases, though it meant the facts remained largely unknown to the public for over a year. Khan has repeatedly denied the accusations.

What shifted on July 8 is procedurally significant. The internal investigation has now issued a substantiated finding against Khan, not merely registered an unresolved complaint. A pending allegation triggers a precautionary suspension; a substantiated finding opens the door to different consequences, including potential removal proceedings under Article 46 of the Rome Statute, which governs removal of ICC officials for serious misconduct. The Bureau framed its June decision explicitly as temporary, pending action by the Assembly of States Parties — the broader body of member states — signaling that the ultimate decision rests with them, not the Bureau alone.

Understanding why this process has taken two years requires grasping how ICC accountability works. The Prosecutor is elected by the Assembly of States Parties and operates largely outside the everyday disciplinary system that governs regular ICC staff. Complaints against the Prosecutor route through the Independent Oversight Mechanism and then to the Bureau and Assembly — a structure designed to protect prosecutorial independence from political pressure. But it also means removal requires a supermajority vote among member states rather than an internal HR decision. This design has faced criticism for moving slowly on high-level cases, and the timeline here — May 2024 complaint to June 2026 suspension to July 2026 finding — illustrates that slower pace.

The timing carries weight beyond the procedural calendar. Khan has been the ICC's most visible prosecutor in recent years. He pursued arrest warrants tied to the Gaza war and investigated cases connected to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, work that drew intense political pressure from multiple directions even before the harassment allegations surfaced. A misconduct finding against a prosecutor of his profile raises practical questions about the fate of ongoing investigations and warrant applications if removal proceedings move forward — separate from the question of whether the finding itself is justified.

It is worth distinguishing what the July 8 disclosure confirms from what remains unresolved. The New York Times reporting establishes that an internal file has reached a finding against Khan; it does not establish what consequences, if any, the Assembly will impose, nor whether Khan will challenge the finding through ICC internal appeals. Member states will now review a report whose full contents remain confidential, working from summaries rather than the original document — a dynamic common in international bodies when senior officials face misconduct proceedings, where rules protecting complainants also limit public scrutiny of the process itself.

The next step is for the Assembly of States Parties to schedule a vote or resolution on the Bureau's referral. Until that happens, Khan remains suspended rather than removed, with the disciplinary file now in member states' hands instead of the court's internal machinery.