Publications

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: 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. 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. 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.

As US organizations from across civil society—including legal, human rights, faith-based, humanitarian, academic, and democracy organizations—alongside advocates for victims and survivors of atrocity crimes, prominent scholars, legal practitioners, diplomats, and civil servants, we are alarmed by the US administration’s announced campaign to “dismantle” and “systematically disable” the International Criminal Court (ICC), including reported threats of consequences for states that continue to support or cooperate with the Court. As the country commemorates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we are reminded that the American experiment rests on an enduring principle: that no one is above the law. An independent judiciary, the rule of law, and equal justice under law are values the United States has long championed both at home and abroad. The United States played a defining role in the early development of international criminal justice. US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson and Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin B. Ferencz, a lifelong champion of international justice, including the ICC, and the promise of “Never Again,” promoted the enduring principle that the gravest crimes must be met with accountability under the law. That commitment continued through US support on a bipartisan basis for accountability efforts before dedicated courts set up to address grave crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone. And it continued to support the work of the ICC in countries including Sudan and Ukraine. The ICC is an independent and impartial judicial institution created by states to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, consistent with the principle that such crimes should not go unpunished. These are the only crimes within its jurisdiction. As a court of last resort, it reinforces—rather than replaces—the primary responsibility of states to investigate and prosecute these crimes. Efforts to intimidate, weaken, or dismantle the Court undermine confidence in the administration of justice and the international legal system itself. Most critically, they break a promise to victims and survivors that justice can prevail over impunity for crimes that shock the conscience of humanity and that no one is above the law. We are concerned by any effort to pressure states for honoring the international legal commitments they have undertaken. The ICC has jurisdiction when a citizen of a non-state party commits crimes within its mandate on the territory of an ICC state party. US citizens who commit crimes abroad are subject to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. This is a well-established principle of international law. We also express our solidarity with the judges, legal professionals, civil society organizations, and others who serve the cause of international justice with professionalism, independence, and fidelity to the law. We urge the administration to withdraw this policy; refrain from actions that undermine the independence and functioning of the International Criminal Court or seek to discourage lawful cooperation with it; and reaffirm the longstanding commitment of the United States to justice, accountability, and the rule of law. July 17, International Justice Day, marks the adoption of the Rome Statute of the ICC. We reaffirm our commitment to accountability for atrocity crimes, to judicial independence, and the rule of law. We urge the US government to uphold that legacy. SIGNATORIES (as of July 17, 2026)  Organizational Signatories Advocacy Network for Justice and Peace (ANJP) The Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice American Atheists American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) American Jewish World Service Americans for Democratic Action  Amnesty International USA Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) Center for Constitutional Rights Center for Development of International Law Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Center for International Policy Center for Justice and Accountability Center for Truth and Justice (CFTJ) Charity & Security Network Citizens for Global Solutions-Education Fund The Cora di Brazzà Foundation cylindr magazine Defending Rights & Dissent Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) Ensaaf Friends Committee on National Legislation The Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security Global Justice Center Human Rights First Human Rights Watch Human Security Project ImPact Coalition on Strengthening International Judicial Institutions Indigenous Environmental Network International Action Network for Gender Equity & Law (IANGEL) International Criminal Court Alliance Latin American Working Group (LAWG) The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns New Jewish Narrative New Lines Institute NH Peace Action Education Fund Peace Action Presbyterian Church (USA), Office of Public Witness The Reckoning Project StoptheDrugWar.org Syria Justice and Accountability Centre United Church of Christ United Nations Association of Greater Philadelphia Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) Western States Legal Foundation Whitestone Legal Advocacy World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy World Without Genocide Individual Signatories Enid H. Adler, Esq Edward Aguilar Kirby Anwar, Visiting Associate Professor, CUNY School of Law Hon. Lloyd Axworthy Hon. Dr. Teta Banks Patricia Barajas Marisa R. Bassett, former Assistant Appeals Counsel, ICTY and IRMCT Hala L. Bouhafa Mike Brand, Director of the Human Security Project and Adjunct Professor of Mass Atrocities and International Law Nancy Bremeau, Commissioner, Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women Alison Brown Thalia R. Brown, Founder and CEO, The Authentic Discussion Dr. John Burroughs Sean Butler, International Criminal Court Alliance Jacqueline Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation Andrea Carlise, Attorney-at-Law Linda Carter, Professor of Law Emerita  Matthew Charity, Professor of Law Roger S. Clark, Professor Donna Cline, International Criminal Lawyer Lawrence Elias Couch David M. Crane, Founding Chief Prosecutor UN Special Court for Sierra Leone Tad Daley, Executive Director, Americans for Democratic Action  Tom Dannenbaum, Professor of Law Christian De Vos, Visiting Assistant Professor, CUNY School of Law Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, Professor, Cardozo Law School Maria Gevorgyan, Center for Truth and Justice (CFTJ) Jennifer Glaudemans, Attorney-at-Law Jonathan Hafetz, Professor of Law Rebecca Hamilton, Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of Law Sarah Elaine Harrison, Former Associate General Counsel, Department of Defense  Kimberly Hart, former Human Rights Team Lead at USAID Ellen Kennedy, Executive Director, World Without Genocide Celeste Kmiotek, Human Rights Lawyer Martha Kruse Winston E. Langley, Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Boston  David Mandel-Anthony, Former Deputy to the Ambassador at Large, Office of Global Criminal Justice, U.S. Department of State Savanna Mapelli Dr. Hope Elizabeth May, The Cora di Brazzà Foundation Dr. Jacqueline R. McAllister, Chair of International Studies, Associate Professor of Political Science, Kenyon College Alice McCarthy Wambura Moenga, International Human Rights Lawyer Chris Morssink, United Nations Association of Greater Philadelphia Priyanka Motaparthy, Clinical Professor of Law Gissou Nia, Human Rights Lawyer William Pace, Executive Director, Center for Development of International Law, Founding Convener, Coalition for the ICC Jessica Peake, Director, International & Comparative Law Program at UCLA School of Law Jessica Pierson Alka Pradhan, Professor Emily Prey, New Lines Institute Stephen J. Rapp, Former US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice Jana Ramsey, Former Senior Policy Advisor, State Department  Nicole Rangel, Human Rights and International Justice Expert  D. Wes Rist, former Atrocity Prevention Policy Advisor, U.S. Department of State Susanne Riveles Gabor Rona, Professor, Cardozo Law School Alberto Saldamando, Indigenous Environmental Network Michael Scharf, President of the American Branch of the International Law Association Elizabeth Shafer, The Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy Rajika Shah, Director, Justice for Atrocities Clinic, LMU Loyola Law School Rebecca A. Shoot, Co-Convener, ImPact Coalition on Strengthening International Judicial Institutions Timothy Slade, Filmmaker Sung Sohn Jane Stromseth, Francis Cabell Brown Professor of International Law Emerita, Georgetown University Law Center Jennifer Trahan, Professor, NYU Center for Global Affairs

We write as organizations committed to gender justice and women’s rights to share observations and recommendations regarding the draft ‘An Act Establishing a War and Economic Crimes Court for Liberia’ (Draft Statute), developed by the Office for the Establishment of War and Economic Crimes Court for Liberia (OWECC-L).

‘Defining women exclusively in their role as ​“mothers” strips them of their full, diverse identities and humanity, reduces women to their reproductive role, and reinforces the patriarchal gender stereotypes that drive violence and discrimination against women and girls. It also reinforces these stereotypes by solely focusing on women’s experience of ​“motherhood” to the exclusion of their other varied identities, characteristics and roles in societies.

In July, the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties will convene an unprecedented Special Session where, for the first time in the Court's history, States will be asked to decide whether to remove a sitting ICC Prosecutor from office. That decision must be grounded in an accurate understanding of the statutory framework governing these disciplinary proceedings and the decisions available to the relevant decision-maker at each stage of the process. There is a legitimate public interest in the disciplinary proceedings currently before the ASP. The allegations against the Prosecutor are serious, and the moral and ethical standards required of his position are high. Yet key aspects of the process remain confidential or unpublished, including virtually all procedural documents, key decisions, the main findings of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which conducted the external fact-finding investigation into the allegations, and the main conclusions of the ad hoc Panel of judicial experts, which was mandated to provide advice on the legal characterisation of the facts as established by the OIOS.

We recommend that the General Recommendation include more specificity in Section A and throughout (as described in detail below), on the role of reproductive capacity in shaping and entrenching gender stereotypes.

In 2022, Michigan’s citizens went to the polls to make their voices heard on an issue of systemic constitutional importance: the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. By a wide margin, Michigan’s citizens voted to enact the Reproductive Freedom for All Amendment (“RFFA”), an amendment to Michigan’s Constitution that eliminates outdated restrictions on reproductive healthcare and protects the fundamental right to reproductive freedom in Michigan, including the freedom for Michiganders to decide to end their pregnancies. The RFFA ensures that Michiganders have “the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy,” including “abortion care,” without the State of Michigan “discriminat[ing] in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.”

As the United States ("US") approaches its rescheduled 4th Universal Periodic Review ("UPR"), individuals’ sexual and reproductive health and rights (“SRHR”) continue to deteriorate across the country. Since our previous submission, both restrictions on reproductive healthcare access, in particular abortion care, and targeted, state-sanctioned violence, intimidation, discrimination, and harassment of communities by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) have increased. This submission updates this coalition’s April 2025 submission. It includes quantitative research and qualitative data gathered from abortion funds, healthcare providers, doulas, and persons detained or deported by ICE agents. Testimony is from individuals who have been directly harmed by restrictive abortion laws and/or by the recent unlawful changes in and enforcement of immigration policies or from individuals whose clients or patients have suffered such harm.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 12.1-36.1 (the “Health Care Ban” or “Ban”) categorically prohibits adolescents from receiving medically necessary treatment when their gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth, while permitting the same interventions for other minors and for other medical purposes. The Health Care Ban impermissibly intrudes on multiple rights protected by the North Dakota Constitution: its guarantees of individuals’ bodily autonomy and access to life‑preserving medical care; its protections for family integrity safeguarding parents’ right to make individualized medical decisions in their children’s best interests; and its equal‑protection provisions prohibiting laws that discriminate on the basis of sex or otherwise restrict important substantive rights for a subset of people without compelling reason. Each of these constitutional guarantees is supported by international and regional human rights law and by the laws and practices of many other nations. Together, these domestic, regional, and international authorities demonstrate that North Dakota’s ban is both unconstitutional and inconsistent with established human rights norms. This Court should therefore reverse the lower court’s decision.