The International Criminal Court’s Chief Prosecutor, who brought charges against Israel’s prime minister and former defense minister on war crimes and crimes against humanity, is facing disciplinary proceedings against him over allegations of sexual misconduct.

After more than a year-long process of investigating the claims that Karim Khan engaged in sexual misconduct with a subordinate staffer, the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) has voted in favor of pursuing disciplinary proceedings against Khan, Reuters reported.

According to The New York Times, the alleged victim revealed the sexual contact with Khan to her husband and several colleagues in April 2024. After colleagues confronted Khan in May, the judges’ report cites a witness who noted that Khan «jumped at the ‘lifeline’ of an alternative narrative when another colleague present said he ‘suspected whether Mossad played a role behind the scenes.’»

ICC PROSECUTOR BEHIND NETANYAHU ARREST WARRANTS STEPS ASIDE AMID SEXUAL MISCONDUCT PROBE

Just weeks later, Khan filed arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The Trump administration sanctioned Khan in February 2025 as a response to the war crimes warrants against the Israeli officials.

Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at George Mason University, told Fox News Digital that the fact that Khan «specifically blamed the Mossad for his problems shows he is fundamentally compromised and the investigation that he launched… in any normal legal system would be dismissed with extreme prejudice.»

He said it was a sign of «how broken» the ICC is «that such a politicized investigation would be allowed to proceed.»

The disciplinary action came as 15 member states voted in favor of moving forward to discipline Khan, with four votes against and two abstentions. In a letter read aloud during the meeting, prosecutors’ office officials noted they were not in favor of Khan remaining in his position as chief prosecutor.

SCANDAL LEAVES INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT GRASPING FOR LEGITIMACY AMID PROBE OF ISRAEL

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (C), Chief of the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces Herzi Halevi (R), and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (L) follow the attack by Israeli warplanes on Hudaydah Port in Yemen, controlled by the Iran-backed Houthis on the Red Sea coast, from the operations center in Jerusalem on July 20, 2024. (Israeli Prime Minister’s Office/Anadolu)

The vote represented a change from the consensus of three judges who determined last month there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegations against Khan «beyond a reasonable doubt,» according to the New York Times report. The judges based their findings on a United Nations’ investigation done by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) turned up more than 5,000 pages of evidence. While the U.N. investigation report determined that Khan had «non-consensual sexual contact» with the employee, the judges’ report found there was no evidence of misconduct.

In a press release, the Association of International Criminal Law Prosecutors (AICLP) noted «structural deficiencies» made clear through the proceedings against Khan.

Among these are an Independent Oversight Mechanism whose processes were «inadequate to the task» when it closed an inquiry into the assault after the alleged victim «declined to file a formal complaint» and claimed she feared retaliation. «The Court cannot credibly prosecute the gravest crimes against persons while tolerating a culture in which its own staff are inadequately protected,» the AICLP argued.

Khan’s alleged retaliation against the staff who supported the complainant further concerned the AICLP. «We observe that the standard for fitness to lead the world’s foremost international criminal prosecution office is not simply the absence of proven misconduct beyond reasonable doubt,» the AICLP wrote. «It also includes the demonstrated capacity to command the trust of the institution’s own staff, and that trust, on the evidence now before the Assembly of States Parties, appears to be deeply and publicly fractured.»

Flag with the logo of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on March 29, 2022, in Den Haag, Netherlands. (Alex Gottschalk/DeFodi Images)

The AICLP believes that «a prompt, principled, and transparent resolution is not only a matter of fairness to the individuals directly involved, but a prerequisite for restoring the operational integrity of an Office on which the cause of international criminal justice depends.»

Prior to the announcement of the Bureau’s decision to pursue disciplinary action against Khan, the ICC directed Fox News Digital to a press release in which the President of the ASP «expresse[d] concern at the recent media reporting concerning the ongoing disciplinary process regarding the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.» The ASP President called «for due respect for the privacy and the rights of all parties concerned, as well as the integrity of the ongoing process.»

Peter Gallo, formerly an investigator with the OIOS, told Fox News Digital that «trying to deflect attention away from the facts of the allegation by blaming Israel is an indication of the anti-Israel bias which clearly exists, and which reduces the ICC to a tool of political warfare rather than any kind of court of justice.»

Gallo noted that «the panel of judges appear to be hung up on there being insufficient evidence to meet the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ standard,» and questioned why «one particular international civil servant [should] be subjected to a ridiculously high standard of proof when lower ranking staff are not.»

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The ICC did not respond to follow-up questions about whether investigations into Gallant and Netanyahu will continue should Khan be removed from his post.

The OIOS did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on its report.

Reuters contributed to this report.

FIRST ON FOX: A conservative watchdog urged a federal appeals court Wednesday to toss Washington, D.C.’s National Guard lawsuit, arguing the city cannot sue itself because it is part of the federal government.

«To start, one cannot sue oneself,» Oversight Project lawyers wrote in a brief in the case. «And that is what this case ultimately is—the United States suing itself. Moreover, it is a foundational principle of the law that a municipal corporation cannot sue its sovereign creator.»

The appeal sits at the intersection of Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington last year and D.C.’s long-running fight over self-government. What began as a lawsuit over the president’s deployment of forces into the capital has now evolved into a threshold legal battle over whether the district has the right to challenge that move in federal court at all.

Oversight Project lawyers told Fox News Digital in an interview that if the appellate court judges in Washington were to agree with them, the decision would reach far beyond the National Guard lawsuit, which arose last year when the Trump administration began deploying military forces to blue cities in several jurisdictions to support immigration officials and, in D.C.’s case, to make the city «safe and beautiful.»

NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS WILL LIKELY REMAIN IN DC THROUGH 2026, OFFICIAL SAYS

«If the judges find our argument valid, it’s going to kind of restore the normal system, which is D.C. is entirely subordinate to the federal government and these disputes are resolved politically,» Oversight Project lawyer Sam Dewey said.

The proper recourse for D.C. against the federal government on any issue would be for the D.C. Council to turn to the president and Congress, not the courts, Dewey said.

The case stemmed from D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb suing last September, arguing Trump encroached on the city’s perceived independence by disregarding «Congress’s decision, half a century ago, to afford the residents of the District ‘the powers of local self-government.’»

A three-judge panel temporarily paused a lower court’s injunction against the administration while the appeals court continues to examine the merits of the case. Two of the judges on the panel, both Trump appointees, wrote in a concurring opinion that the pause was necessary because D.C. did not, in fact, have standing to sue, echoing what the Oversight Project detailed in its new amicus brief in the case.

«We have never recognized that the District possesses an independent sovereignty that can give rise to an Article III injury from actions of the federal government,» the two Trump-appointed judges wrote.

PIRRO TOUTS DC CRIME IS BEING PROSECUTED ‘LIKE NEVER BEFORE’ IN ANNOUNCING YEAR-END STATS

The Trump administration deployed federal officers and the National Guard to the District in order to place the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under federal control and assist in crime prevention in the nation’s capital in 2025. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump began deploying National Guard forces to cities across the country last year as part of an effort to support immigration authorities, who faced waves of protests and riots over their deportation efforts. The Supreme Court stepped in, however, saying the deployment was likely unlawful under the law Trump invoked. The order applied to cities including Portland, Oregon; and Chicago, but not D.C., because of the district’s unique status.

In D.C., Trump extended roughly 2,600 National Guard soldiers’ presence through the end of 2026, and the president has signaled he hopes to further extend that timeline, despite continued opposition from D.C.’s Democratic leadership.

«This is actually training. I never want to take them out of D.C. I mean, maybe somebody later on will do it,» Trump said in a Cabinet meeting last month.

ALITO RIPS SUPREME COURT MAJORITY AS ‘UNWISE’ FOR BLOCKING TRUMP’S NATIONAL GUARD PLAN

People participate in a rally against the Trump Administration’s federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.  (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Briefing in the lawsuit is set to stretch through May and the appeals court could schedule oral arguments after that before making a decision on the legality of the National Guard’s presence and activities.

Fox News Digital reached out to Schwalb’s office for comment.

Mis rincones oscuros (1996) no es una novela de ficción, sino una autobiografía de investigación y una de las obras más crudas de James Ellroy. En este libro, el autor deja de lado sus tramas policiales imaginarias para enfrentar el crimen que marcó su vida: el asesinato de su propia madre.

En 1958, cuando Ellroy tenía 10 años, su madre, Geneva Hilliker Ellroy, fue violada y estrangulada en El Monte, California. El cadáver fue hallado en una cuneta y el asesino nunca fue capturado. Casi 40 años después, ya como un escritor famoso, Ellroy decidió reabrir el caso. Para ello, contrató a Bill Stoner, un detective retirado de homicidios del condado de Los Ángeles, y juntos pasaron 15 meses revisando expedientes y buscando testigos olvidados.

Más allá de buscar al culpable, el libro es un intento de Ellroy por conocer a la mujer que fue su madre, a quien él mismo admite haber despreciado durante su infancia debido a la influencia de su padre. Es un libro donde el autor no se guarda nada sobre su propio pasado oscuro. Narra su caída en el alcoholismo, el consumo de drogas, sus arrestos por robos menores y su etapa como “mirón” y vagabundo antes de convertirse en escritor.

Allí escribe: “Los hombres mataban porque estaban borrachos, colocados y furiosos. Mataban por dinero. Mataban porque otros hombres hacían que se sintiesen mariquitas. Los hombres mataban para impresionar a otros hombres. Mataban para poder hablar de ello. Mataban porque eran débiles y perezosos”.

Y de ahí avanza: ¿por qué los hombres matan a las mujeres? Dice Ellroy: “Los hombres mataban a las mujeres por capitulación. La muy puta no les dejaba hacer lo que les venía en gana o no les daba su dinero. La muy puta cocía excesivamente el bistec. A la muy puta le daba un ataque cuando ellos cambiaban sus cupones de comida por droga. A la muy puta no le gustaba que sobara a su hija de doce años».

Hace unos años, en una entrevista con Patricia Kolesnicov en el diario argentino Clarín, reafirmó esta idea: “Los hombres siguen asesinando mujeres. Los chicos crecen consumidos por esa obsesión por saber. Ese porqué específico: ¿Por qué murió mi madre? ¿Por qué ese hombre en esa específica noche tuvo que hacer lo que hizo? En ese sentido el libro es eterno».

El enfoque de la violencia, sostiene el autor, trasciende las explicaciones individuales. Ellroy enfatiza, como muchas corrientes feministas, que no cree en causas singulares sino en comportamientos colectivos.

“Por supuesto que nunca encontramos al asesino ni lo vamos a encontrar. En esta vida no, en la otra veremos”, admite el escritor durante la entrevista. Sin embargo, en el final de Mis rincones oscuros, Ellroy formula un juramento en memoria de su madre: “No permitiré que esto termine. No volveré a traicionarla ni a abandonarla.”

Quién es James Ellroy

James Ellroy es uno de los escritores más potentes y singulares de la novela negra contemporánea. Se lo conoce como “el perro rabioso de la literatura estadounidense”. Su estilo es inconfundible: frases cortas, secas, casi telegráficas, y una visión obsesiva con el L.A. oscuro de mediados del siglo XX, la corrupción policial y los bajos fondos de la política.

Entre sus libros esenciales, hay dos grandes sagas. Por un lado, El Cuarteto de Los Ángeles, su obra cumbre, donde mezcla crímenes reales con ficción en la California de los años 40 y 50. Aquí están La Dalia Negra (1987), El gran desierto (1988), L.A. Confidential (1990) y White Jazz (1992).

Además, la Trilogía Americana (Underworld USA), que deja de lado el crimen local para contar la historia secreta de Estados Unidos entre 1958 y 1972, vinculando a la mafia, el FBI de Hoover y los Kennedy. Sus libros son América (1995), Seis de los grandes (2001) y Sangre vagabunda (2009).