The International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan has been placed on suspension pending the outcome of ongoing internal proceedings relating to allegations of misconduct.

The decision was taken by a body within the court’s administrative and oversight structure and has been referred to the Assembly of States Parties, which comprises the ICC’s 125 member states.

The Assembly is expected to consider the matter in a special session to be convened at a later date. The oversight body has stated that the suspension does not determine or imply any conclusion on the allegations under review.

Khan has previously denied the allegations and has been on voluntary leave since 2025 while the matter is being addressed through established ICC procedures.

According to earlier procedural updates, the matter has undergone internal review processes, including examination by the court’s Independent Oversight Mechanism and later referral to the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services for further assessment.

Those processes produced investigative material which has been reviewed under the ICC’s internal governance framework, including consideration by a panel advising on whether any conduct issues meet the threshold for disciplinary action.

The Assembly of States Parties is expected to decide on any further steps, which may include continued suspension, reinstatement, or other administrative measures in accordance with ICC rules.

Any final decision would be subject to the court’s established appeal mechanisms, including potential review by relevant international administrative tribunals.

The matter arises amid broader institutional and geopolitical tensions affecting the ICC, including disputes involving several member and non-member states over the court’s investigations and jurisdictional reach.

The ICC operates under a framework in which it may assert jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed on the territory of member states, regardless of the nationality of those involved.

Officials and observers have noted that the outcome of the current process could have implications for the court’s internal governance and public confidence in its disciplinary systems.