Originally posted by Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice

July 21st, 2026 — An International Criminal Court (ICC) junior staff member accused the ICC’s Prosecutor, the highest elected official within the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the Court, of sexual misconduct and retaliation against ICC staff that reported the misconduct. We urge States Parties not to lose sight of what, and who, the special session convened for 24 July of the Assembly of States Parties is actually about. 

As feminist organisations and experts working on gender justice and institutional accountability, we are concerned that the substance of the proceedings, allegations of sexual misconduct and retaliation within the OTP, is being displaced by inaccurate information surrounding the disciplinary process.

At the Centre of This Process Are Survivors of Gender-based Violence in the Workplace

Article 42(3) of the Rome Statute requires the Prosecutor to be a person of high moral character. That is the question now before the Assembly: whether the sitting Prosecutor reportedly found to have engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with a junior member of his immediate office, and to have retaliated against staff who relayed her account, meets that standard.

On 16 July 2026, Sarah, a lawyer and ICC staff member who came forward with claims of sexual misconduct by the ICC Prosecutor, spoke publicly for the first time. She described a progressive escalation of acts that crossed her physical and emotional boundaries, including specific incidents during official missions abroad. A second woman, who worked for the Prosecutor earlier in her career, has described a similar pattern during an internship.

Sarah was a junior staff member working in the immediate office of the Prosecutor, the highest officer in a rigidly hierarchical institution. Women who come forward in these circumstances have nothing to gain and a great deal to lose. Sarah’s immigration status also affected her ability to report concerns. Sarah’s career, personal and family life have all suffered because of what she endured. The power imbalance is also reflected in the media, which has  portrayed her as a foreign intelligence agent and a threat rather than as a woman subjected to alleged conduct no one should face in their workplace.

The chilling effect is inevitable. As Purna Sen, formerly Special Advisor to the Prosecutor on Working Climate, observes, underreporting of harassment in international organisations is well documented, including at the ICC, and the disincentives are structural: institutional closure around senior staff, opaque process, denial of access to outcomes, and career-damaging stigma. Every process handled this way raises the threshold for the next person. 

The Ad Hoc Panel Did Not Exonerate the Prosecutor

The ad hoc Panel did not exonerate the Prosecutor. The ad hoc Panel’s mandate was narrow and expressly advisory. The Bureau confirmed on 2 July 2025 that the Panel would have an advisory role in relation to the Bureau and would focus strictly on the legal characterisation of the facts in the OIOS report, and not on fact-finding. It did not conduct the investigation, did not independently establish facts, did not make recommendations on sanctions, and did not decide the matter. Its conclusions amount to legal advice, not a judgment nor a court ruling. 

Within the legal architecture of the ICC, the Rome Statute assigns the ASP the task of disciplining elected officials. States Parties elect the Prosecutor under Article 42, and Article 46 places removal in the same hands. The power to appoint and the power to discipline are deliberately paired, because accountability for the Court’s most senior officials cannot rest with the officials themselves.

The Court’s Work on the Situation in the State of Palestine Does Not Depend on a Single Official

The OTP is a professional body of lawyers, investigators and specialists whose expertise ensures continuity of cases across successive terms. Its work does not rest on any individual officeholder. The investigation into the Situation in the State of Palestine was announced by former Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda on 3 March 2021, predating both the current Prosecutor’s term and the allegations that emerged in 2024. The Office filed applications for arrest warrants on 20 May 2024, and Pre-Trial Chamber I issued them unanimously on 21 November 2024.

The OTP has continued to function since the Prosecutor took leave of absence in May 2025 and since his suspension by the Bureau in June 2026, under the leadership of the Deputy Prosecutors. Work has also progressed in other situations, including Libya and the Philippines. A substantial part of the Office’s activity proceeds under seal, and the absence of public records is not evidence of inactivity.

Ensuring the Integrity of the ICC is Essential to Pushback Against Attacks

We strongly condemn the United States sanctions regime designating Court officials and Palestinian organisations and the campaign announced by the United States Secretary of State on 13 July 2026 to “dismantle” the “threat of the ICC.” As feminist organisations and international justice practitioners committed to accountability for international crimes, and fighting for justice and reparations for victims and survivors of gender-based crimes, we take these attacks seriously and are deeply concerned about them because we believe and support the essential work of the ICC. 

These threats are, however, distinct from allegations of misconduct raised internally by members of the Court’s own staff. Conflating the two issues reinforces misogynistic stereotypes about survivors of gender-based violence, and entrenches the well-documented underreporting of harassment in international workplaces, including at the Court itself. 

We call on ICC States Parties to:

1. Attend the Special Session and cast a vote. A decision of this significance should reflect the full membership of the Assembly. When a representative cannot attend in person, proxy voting is available, and we encourage its use so that no State Party’s voice goes unheard.
2. Decide on the basis of the full record before the Assembly, comprising the OIOS, ad hoc Panel’s, and the Bureau’s reports, and underlying evidence and the written submissions of both parties.
3. Reject the conflation of allegations relating to the Situation in the State of Palestine, and reaffirm publicly that the Court’s work in Palestine and in all other situations continues irrespective of the outcome of the vote.

The manner in which this process concludes will be read by survivors of sexual violence as an indication of what the institution expects of those who report misconduct, and of what it is prepared to require of those who hold its highest offices.

For more information about the legal framework and the steps taken so far in this process, see this joint civil society Q&A providing documented and publicly sourced information.

Our work on Workplace Culture at the ICC

Signatories

Organisations (34)

• Action Against Prohibited Conduct (AAPC),
• ARJPDH (Action pour la Réforme de la Justice et la Promotion des Droits de l’Homme), Democratic Republic of Congo
• Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos, Perú
• Bumi Setara, Indonesia
• Clinique de droit international pénal et humanitaire (Faculté de droit, Université Laval), Canada
• Corporación Humanas, Chile
• Corporación ILEX Accion Juridica, Colombia
• Cordaid, The Netherlands
• Family Frontiers, Malaysia
• International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), France
• International People’s Tribunal for Indonesia’s Genocide 1965/66, Indonesia/Netherlands
• Just Access, Germany
• Global Justice Center, USA
• Greater Equitable Measures (GEM), Malaysia
• International Criminal Law Society, Germany
• Intersex Thailand, Thailand
• Kemban Kolektif, Malaysia
• KOMPAKS (Civil Society Coalition of Anti Sexual Violence), Indonesia
• Kurdish organizations Network coalition for the International Criminal Court (KONCICC), Iraq
• Life campaign to abolish the death sentence in Kurdistan, Iraq
• Manushya Foundation, Thailand
• Sankorelabs, Mali
• Students for Global Democracy Uganda, Uganda
• The Regional Coalition for Women Human Rights Defenders in South West Asia and North Africa (WHRDMENA), SWANA region
• New Bloom, Taiwan
• NGO-CEDAW Cambodia, Cambodia
• Organization of the Justice Campaign‏- OJC, Iraq
• Ruta Pacifica de Mujeres, Colombia
• Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network, Indonesia
• Sustainable Development Network, Malaysia
• Synergy for Justice Stichting, The Netherlands
• UpRights, The Netherlands
• Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition (WHRDIC), Global
• Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ), The Netherlands
• Women’s International Peace Centre, Uganda
• Youth Association for Development (YAD), Pakistan
• Zarga organization for rural development, Sudan

Individuals (216)

• Adrian Fekete, Germany
• Akila Radhakrishnan, Independent human rights lawyer and gender justice expert
• Alannah Cooper, Netherlands
• Albane Sibourd-Baudry, Switzerland
• Alisya Fairuz
• Alyn Ware, World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy, Czech Republic
• Amanda Zirgulis
• Ambre Arnold
• Amira Samsudin
• Amy Yasmine, Malaysia
• Angelica Cocoma, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Germany
• Angie Conroy, NGO-CEDAW, Cambodia
• Anne Marie Tan Sue Yen, Malaysia
• Annelies van der Plas, Netherlands
• Annie Nguyen , USA
• Annie O’Reilly Lawyer , Ireland
• Antonella Leone, Switzerland
• Anusha Rym
• Asha Dhillon, Malaysia
• Audrey Crasson
• Banil Lorid
• Bas Oostdijk, Netherlands
• Belle Razali, Transgender and Gender Diverse Health Expert/Consultant, Malaysia
• Bjorn Arp, International Human Rights Lawyer, United States of America
• Carina Bury
• Carlos David Avendaño, The Netherlands
• Caroline Reinhart, Journalist, France
• Charlotte lamy
• Charlotte LP
• Christian St-Pierre, Investigator, Canada
• Christiane Cesin
• Christina Konstantinidou
• Christopher “Kip” Hale, International Criminal Lawyer
• Clara Sabina Bowley, Nurse
• Dalina Annuar, Malaysia
• Daniel William Franken
• Danya O. Centeno García, International Human Rights and Criminal Justice Lawyer
• Diana Bravo Rubio, Academica y defensora de derechos humanos, Colombia
• Edgardo Legaspi, Philippines
• Edward Patrick Flaherty, Attorney at Law (US Supreme Court Bar), Switzerland
• Emeric Rogier, Former ICC
• Emilie Palamy Pradichit, Laos / Thailand
• Emily Cheah, Lawyer, Malaysia
• Enid H Adler, Esq, Counselor and Attorney at Law (retired), USA
• Erin Farrell Rosenberg
• Estelle Mounier, Magistrate
• Evi Siganou
• Fareeza Ibrahim, Malaysia
• Frans de Ridder, Nederland
• Geneviève Audet, Canada
• George Boskos
• Gry Tina Tinde, Investigator of sexual exploitation and abuse
• Gwendoline RENAUD, France
• Hédoux, France
• Henrietta Pentony
• Ho Mei Yee Ashely, Malaysia
• Ineke de Ridder-Cornax, The Netherlands
• Inge cs , Nederland
• Ireena zain, Malaysia
• Jack Murphy, United Kingdom
• Jehan Aziz
• Jennifer Trahan, Professor, NYU Center for Global Affairs
• Jeroen de Zeeuw
• Jiavern Tham, HAYAT, Malaysia
• John
• Josepha Umri Jones, USA
• Julia Baly, Australia
• Kathy Franken, United States
• Kelsey R
• Kevin van den Abeele
• Kristen Anna, USA
• Kristen Wojcik
• Krittaporn Semsantad, Thailand
• Lavi Kasilingam
• Li Tim, Koh
• Lisa van Leur
• LiYing Lim
• Lucie Canal
• M. van Looij
• Madeleine Tee Cheng Mei, Malaysia
• Marianne Migneault, Canada
• Marie Lamy
• Martine Costers, Belgium
• Mathilde Colin
• Melissa G
• Michel Tuerlings
• Michiel Rouw
• Muhammad Sha’ani bin Abdullah, Sustainable Development Network Malaysia
• Nada Chaiyajit
• Nadia van der Linde, Netherlands
• Nicola Fletcher, Former ICC, Netherlands
• Norlaili Ismail
• Nur Hani Hidayah Ab Razak, Malaysia
• Omar A, Netherlands
• Patricia Stewart, APPI, Ireland
• Puteri noor Amirah, Malaysia
• Rebecca A.Shoot, Impact Coalition on Strengthening International Judicial Institutions, USA
• Rebecca Hamilton, Professor of Law American University, Washington College of Law
• Rima Isam Anabtawi, Academic, USA
• Robert Hotston
• Rosemary Grey, Sydney Law School, Australia
• Saber Chatar, Netherlands
• Sandra Sporer , Germany
• Sara Is
• Sarah Bergman, Psychologist, France
• Sebastian Landin
• Sergio Rodriguez Diaz, Colombia
• Shreyashi Sharma, Human Rights Lawyer, India
• Shriya Patel
• Sofie Wallyn, Belgium
• Stephen Rapp, USA
• Steven Reilly, United Kingdom
• Sumit Dheir
• Tamyra Selvarajan
• Thea Coventry, PhD Candidate in international law, Leiden University, Netherlands
• Theresa de Langis, PhD, USA
• Thomas Ebbs
• TIU KIAN WEE
• Tiffany Ly, Germany
• Valerie Lim
• Vony Rambolamanana, International criminal law expert, France
• Wapke Alexandra Monasch, PMT Groep The Netherlands
• Zélie Marembert, France
• Zoé L.
• Zoe S.
• And 91 further signatories who wish to remain publicly anonymous, including 19 ICC staff members.