Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with Accuses ICC's Karim Khan of Sexual Misconduct and ICC Staff Member Sarah; Interview with Lead counsel for Karim Khan Sareta Ashraph. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired July 16, 2026 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:00:00]

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.

Sharing her story, the woman who accuses the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, of sexual misconduct goes public

after a lengthy U.N. investigation. Khan denies all allegations and the ICC member states are preparing to vote on his fate. Now, for the first time,

his accuser gives me her account of what happened and how it's impacted her and that these allegations have nothing to do with the ICC arrest warrants

for Israel's prime minister and defense minister.

Then, we hear from a second accuser. She says Khan sexually harassed her in 2009. He denies that, too. We will also hear from Karim Khan's lead

counsel.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.

Tonight, a world exclusive. The International Criminal Court, whose mission is global justice and accountability, faces serious allegations against its

chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, and his accuser sits down with us to tell her side of the story for the first time publicly.

For months, the U.N.'s Oversight Office, known as the OIOS, investigated claims by this employee at the ICC that Khan sexually harassed her and

subjected her to non-consensual sexual acts. We've obtained a copy of that report, which states that they, quote, "found evidence showing a factual

basis to her claims against Mr. Khan."

Khan denies all the allegations and says it's the finding of a later judgment, one from a three-judge panel, that really matters. That panel

found the report does not disprove her allegations of misconduct, but says the evidence doesn't meet the legal threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the New York Times, following this, an executive body made up of 21 member states reached its conclusion and suspended Karim Khan from

his duties as chief prosecutor. And next Friday, all 125 ICC member states will vote on whether Khan should be dismissed. It's a moment of crisis for

the court.

In May 2024, Khan broke the news on this program that he was seeking arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister and defense minister for crimes

committed over the war in Gaza, as well as for Hamas officials for their crimes on and around October 7th. The reaction from the U.S. and Israel was

furious, and members of the court have since been subjected to sanctions and restrictions by the United States, a pressure campaign that's ongoing.

Just this week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed to dismantle the ICC, quote, "brick by brick."

It was during this pressure campaign that allegations of sexual misconduct against Khan first emerged. But crucially, the allegations made by the

woman at the heart of this story are unconnected to the ICC's arrest warrants for top Israeli officials, the ICC report found, though many have

tried to conflate the two.

Some supporters of Khan going so far as to falsely accuse her of working at Israel's behest, even being a Mossad agent, attempting to discredit him and

his war crimes case. Karim Khan has spoken publicly in recent weeks, in interviews and addresses, denying the allegations against him.

And tonight, we hear from the woman accusing him. Her name is Sarah. She's asked us not to broadcast her last name. She's worked at the ICC since 2017

and is still employed there. She says she never wanted to be in this position and that it's still difficult for her to talk about it.

Now, we do want to warn you that the accusations you hear may be triggering, especially for survivors of sexual assault. Here is our

interview.

[13:05:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Sarah, thank you for being here. Can I just start at the beginning? I just would like you to tell me a little bit about how you came

to international law, this this field, what motivated you?

SARAH, ACCUSES ICC'S KARIM KHAN OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, WHICH HE DENIES AND ICC STAFF MEMBER: First of all, I'm from Malaysia. I'm Malayan Muslim. And

when I was 11, my mom and I moved to Singapore, and I attended a school called United World College.

And actually, the year that I moved to Singapore was 1998, when the Rome Statute, which is kind of the founding document of the International

Criminal Court, was signed. And the International Criminal Court had just been established. And it was everything that appealed to me.

AMANPOUR: When did you first join?

SARAH: 2017, end of 2017, as an intern. And I joined Fatou Bensouda's immediate office.

AMANPOUR: She was the chief prosecutor then?

SARAH: That's correct. Yes.

AMANPOUR: And she has said that you were a really very motivated, very capable, very diligent worker. What was exactly your position there?

SARAH: I was maybe the oldest intern. I started off as an intern at the court. And I did essentially anything that was asked of me in the immediate

office, and that could be drafting speeches. And I would be there to assist in any way possible.

AMANPOUR: So, after that period of time with Fatou Bensouda, then Karim Khan takes over when her term is over. What was your first impressions of

him? Because you were in his office, in that floor.

SARAH: I was still in the legal advisory section. Actually, I fully supported his election as prosecutor.

AMANPOUR: Why?

SARAH: He spoke about workplace culture, amongst many other things. And I agreed with many of his points of view. And I thought he would be a good

prosecutor.

AMANPOUR: What was the actual job? What did it entail?

SARAH: The direct special assistant role was to essentially perform any task that Mr. Khan needed. And during my interviews, I was asked

repeatedly, are you willing to go on all missions with Mr. Khan? They highlighted the fact that, you know, you have a child, would that be

something that's still possible?

It would be preparing his briefing notes. It would -- I would be one of four people in his immediate team. And so, essentially, anything that Mr.

Khan needed, we would be executing.

AMANPOUR: And you were amenable to that? You said yes?

SARAH: Yes. Yes.

AMANPOUR: So, now come the beginnings of the allegations. According to the reports that we have obtained, you allege that Mr. Khan became, quote,

"more poi, more poi and aggressive," touching your breasts, genital area, pulling you towards his crotch, eventually digitally and genitally

penetrating you. These are all allegations that he denies. Can you tell me about some of that?

SARAH: First of all, I can't speak about what I told the OIOS investigators. And I'm not going to comment on the report itself. But I can

speak to my own experiences.

The first thing that I would have to say is that this did not happen in isolation. This was an environment where we were always on the move. There

was always a crisis because that is what happens at the court, you have to deal with multiple things. And it's also very emotional work that you're

doing.

Mr. Khan himself, in my experience, was a very reactive individual. And he could go from being fine and collaborative, to angry, for example, at

criticism in social media. And that would be this rage. And so, you kind of always felt like the ground was shifting under you. And there was a -- I

have no other way to describe it, but an escalation of attempts.

[13:10:00]

And so, that escalation was happening in this environment, where you are trying desperately to almost emotionally regulate Mr. Khan. And as I would

describe it, the point of the physical nature of it.

But it didn't start that way. Because it was kind of like encroachments on the boundaries slowly, not just physically, but emotionally as well.

AMANPOUR: Can I just read some of what -- I know you can't comment on the actual report, but we've seen the actual report. He maintains that he never

engaged in any conduct with you that could be construed as inappropriate, unwelcome or abusive. He also said that you did not express in any fashion

that you found any conduct or interaction unwelcome or inappropriate.

And recently you've seen and many people have seen he did a public interview with Mehdi Hasan on Zeteo, in which he categorically denied

having any kind of relationship with you. I know you can't talk about the report. But although what do you say to those denials?

SARAH: There's many ways in which I can answer this. The first thing that I would say is that there is no way for something to be consensual when you

have such a power disparity. What I think many people don't understand is that Mr. Khan was not just my boss, he was everyone's bosses. He is the

boss of all bosses. And it cannot be consensual.

I will give you two examples. One is there was a point in time when I said to Mr. Khan that if this continued, I was afraid that I might do something

to myself.

AMANPOUR: So, you had suicidal thoughts?

SARAH: I never used that word internally, but I just couldn't do it anymore. And Mr. Khan understood fully. He was actually very kind in that

moment. And he said, I would never want you to harm yourself. And he stopped. I would say about two or three weeks, but that was worse. Because

prior to that, it was like being a zombie or being in a fog.

But in those two or three weeks, I was really hopeful, because he wasn't retaliating against me. The work was happening. And so, I thought it was

done. And that's all I ever wanted for it just to be finished. And then it started again. And so, the crash was even worse.

The second instance, when we talk about consent, we don't need a series of incidences. And we know that. So, let's take one moment. One of my

experiences happened in Colombia.

AMANPOUR: On a mission to Venezuela and Colombia at that time.

SARAH: Correct. And Mr. Khan's hotel room was on the floor above mine, right at the end of a hallway. And usually, we sort of cordon off or block

off that section for his security and safety. My room was on the floor beneath his, and I had a staff member on either side. We had arrived and

Mr. Khan called me and said, there's a text message I need you to have a look at.

And I thought this was -- because Mr. Khan always used the guise of work to initiate interactions. And so, very stupidly, I said, I think I'm nauseous

from the altitude, you know, Bogota is above sea level. And I said, could we have a look at this over dinner? Because we were meeting with an

official delegate. And he said, it's OK, I'll come down to your hotel room.

And in that split second, I thought between the two bad options, this was the better option because he likely wouldn't try anything knowing that

there were two staff members on either side of my room. And I remember distinctly that I stood very close to the door of my hotel room.

[13:15:00]

He showed me the text message. And I said, OK, well, I can't do anything with this. Like, you have to send it to me for me to log it. And he sent

it. And then he asked me, are you going to take a nap now? I said, Yes, maybe we can talk later. And he said, OK, I'll take a nap as well with you.

And I froze.

And I remember I was wearing black leggings and a black top. And I lay on the edge of the bed, facing the wall, sort of in like a fetal position. And

there is no explanation for this. But I did what sounds ridiculous, but was exactly what I did during a traumatic event when I was a child. And I

pretended to be asleep. Nobody goes to sleep that quickly, unless I guess you're on drugs, or you've had a lot of alcohol.

And I felt Mr. Khan sort of scooch over in the bed. And he started to put his hand down my leggings to grope me to put his tongue in my ear. And I

didn't move an inch. Even when I remember, I think his fingernail must have caught my skin. I didn't flinch nothing. I just was still.

Now, when you take that one incident alone, if you believe someone to be asleep, that is not consent. You cannot consent to that.

AMANPOUR: Can I point some things out then, in this idea of did he think it was consensual? You've explained exactly why that couldn't be possible

from your point of view, of course. And afterwards, according to the report, he would ask you whether you were comfortable or uncomfortable with

anything he was doing. In other words, after you had these experiences that you allege, he would then say, of course, you'd -- I'm paraphrasing, you'd

tell me if you're uncomfortable. Is that correct?

SARAH: He would sometimes mention that, or ask me that question. But if you know, Mr. Khan, he's not expecting a response from you. Mr. Khan does

what he wants. And I, again, go back to that moment where I clearly told him, if this continues, I might harm myself.

AMANPOUR: Khan, according to the report, said that you demonstrated constant insistence sometimes to go on missions, which at least one staffer

agreed with.

SARAH: First of all, Mr. Khan is a boss. No staff member gets to decide if they go on mission or not. That's not up to us.

AMANPOUR: So, that -- what you're telling me is that there's a very strict and clear hierarchy. And the word insist you disagree with?

SARAH: Absolutely.

AMANPOUR: OK. Let me ask you about this, which is a very serious allegation. One of the people who spoke to the report, as far as I've seen,

said that they had asked you after you told them about what happened in Venezuela, where he directly asked you whether he had raped you. And

according to the report, you didn't answer but look down, side and shrugged.

SARAH: Throughout everything that has happened, I haven't placed a label on anything. One, because I am not a lawyer in this. Even though that's my

profession. It's not my place to label anything. What I've tried to do is to stick to the details. And to the best of my recollection, recollect them

and present it to the people who are meant to be decision makers.

The second part is a little bit more personal. If I would put a label, whatever that label is, I'm not sure how I can get through the day. And I

have had to play multiple roles in this. And I'm also a mom. So, I have to function. So, it has been easier for me.

[13:20:00]

Do not focus on that and just describe the events as they happen. And I also think that it's just more accurate.

AMANPOUR: Do you like to have a bit of water, take a break? You OK?

SARAH: Yes.

AMANPOUR: I need to ask you another question, which is about his explanation of something you started to explain the configuration of the

rooms on this mission denies the allegation told -- this is Mr. Khan, according to report, denies the allegations told investigators that the

presence of his security details would have made attempts to go to her hotel room, quote, "virtually impossible."

SARAH: Now, the close protection officers, as we call them, or security detail, are there specifically to protect and keep Mr. Khan safe. They are

not to restrict or limit his movements or Mr. Khan's team. And so, whether we're talking about entering Mr. Khan's hotel room or Mr. Khan coming to

any of our rooms, that is not for them to determine.

The four individuals that I mentioned, myself included, part of his immediate team regularly went to Mr. Khan's hotel room, whether one of us,

several of us, and Mr. Khan could certainly come to any of our hotel rooms.

AMANPOUR: At what point did you did you tell anybody?

SARAH: If I look back now, I think I was testing the waters because I guess I was flagging that things were not all well through a series of text

messages to a former colleague of mine. And then there was a colleague of mine in a different team where I did not go into detail. I did not provide

specifics, but I made several indications that I was not OK and that I wanted to leave the team.

Now, this individual had known Mr. Khan maybe for 10, 15 years and made very clear to me that even if I moved into another team, I would still be

seen as a threat or a loose string.

AMANPOUR: They advised you not to make waves and not to come across as a threat.

SARAH: Correct. And by that point, I had heard from a number of individuals to not cross Mr. Khan.

AMANPOUR: Because what do they think could happen? What do you think? I have to ask you, what do you think might have happened? Were you afraid of

losing your job? Were you afraid of --

SARAH: Everything. And in fact, all those things have happened. So, I think my concerns were valid. I was -- I am under a visa of the court. And

what that means is if I lose my job, I have approximately two weeks to leave the E.U., which means leaving my son and my husband.

AMANPOUR: They're Dutch nationals. You're not. You didn't take their Dutch nationality.

SARAH: I never took their Dutch nationality. And of course, I can apply for it. But there is a period of time I would have to return to Malaysia as

I understand it, apply through the embassy. And then while that's being processed, I cannot work full-time. So, I would also lose my salary.

At that period of time, my mother had stage four cancer. I'm her only child. And there were a lot of -- she was in and out of the ER every three,

four weeks. She needed 24 seven care.

AMANPOUR: I want to get to another part of the report. One key official close to Mr. Khan and in the in the court spoke also to the investigators

and said you advised him that something very, very bad was up. And this individual says he went to Mr. Khan. This is all in the report and told him

about it. He felt he owed him that.

According to this individual, Mr. Khan's face went white and he asked whether the complainant was male or female. Upon learning that it was

female on their floor, Mr. Khan asked who it was when advised that it was you. He apparently said, I'm finished. I'll need to resign. I'm not strong

enough for this.

[13:25:00]

And he also added that his resignation would be seen as him, quote, "running away from the Palestinian issue." We're going to talk about that

in a moment.

He further goes on to say, this is the person who talked to the to the investigators, that Mr. Khan did not ask what the allegations were. That's

in the report. Let's get a little bit to the investigation. It's complicated, to say the least.

There is an investigative body called the IOM, the Independent Oversight Mechanism. They try to investigate after your allegations emerge, but you

refuse to cooperate with them. And that closed their investigation. Is that the case? Why would you refuse to cooperate?

SARAH: I can't speak about confidential matters at the court. But what I can say is this. The ICC has got a framework with rules and regulations.

So, they did not need my approval to conduct an investigation. Again, my intention was never to have an investigation or for this to have gone as

far as it did. I just wanted it to stop. That's it.

AMANPOUR: Khan says he told investigators, according to the report again, that he suggested a lateral move out of his office as a good career

opportunity. But you chose to stay in the office instead.

SARAH: What I have are numerous text messages where I discuss this with fellow staff. There is also a conversation that was held with this senior

staff member that spoke to me concerning this. And even he suggests and says very clearly, if you move now, it won't be good for you. Everyone

agreed without having spoken to each other that if I accepted such a move again, Mr. Khan is the ultimate boss. Eventually, something would happen.

AMANPOUR: Now, despite all these allegations, very serious allegations, you did keep up a friendly correspondence with him. Even afterwards, you

sent once a heart emoji to him. You once sent a birthday card. This was in March of 2024, a full year into the abuse. You say you suffered. Can I read

from the card?

SARAH: Sure.

AMANPOUR: For years, I had admired you from afar as a lawyer. Today, I'm in short span of time. You've become far more to me on this special

occasion. I celebrate the entirety of the person I've gotten to know. You're kind, empathetic, funny, passionate and formidable. You've given me

back so much of what had been forgotten. And for this, I'm eternally grateful.

What were you thinking then about why you wrote that?

SARAH: First of all, again, it was always better to stay on Mr. Khan's good side. It might seem counterproductive, but by, this is going to sound

really bad, but stroking his ego. Again, I was less of a threat. And so, I'd be able to better evade his physical advances.

AMANPOUR: Did you ever go to the media?

SARAH: No.

AMANPOUR: We're sitting down together now. This is your first time talking to the media. Is there any upside for you for actually coming out and

reporting?

SARAH: If there is, I'd like to know it. When I made that disclosure, I was exhausted. I was extremely emotional. I was not in a good place. And it

was after the colleague I share an office with had repeatedly said, are you OK? Something's wrong. Something's up. You haven't been -- you've been

behaving strangely. And it came up.

My experience is this. For the last two years, my complaint has been conflated with other reasons. And in my line of work, I think it's worse to

be considered a state agent than a sexual harasser.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's stop there because this is actually part of what has been said in public. So, as you remember, because I think you were

there, in May of 2024, I interviewed Kareem Khan at the Office of the prosecutor about -- well, he announced on our program, that he was seeking

and applying for arrest warrants against the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and the two main

top -- or several top Hamas officials.

[13:30:00]

This took U.S. and Israeli officials by surprise. What was your involvement in assisting with that work?

SARAH: That's something I can't comment on.

AMANPOUR: OK. Can I ask you how you view the validity of the arrest warrants?

SARAH: I can't speak about specific investigations, but what I can say is this. I joined the court and I work at the court because I believe in what

the court does. And I fully and entirely support the court's investigations, which is also the reason why I didn't come forward for so

long, because I was so scared and so worried that doing so would affect the court's work.

And we talk about the ICC, but it's also staff members. So, if I came forward, my complaint could have an effect on my colleagues who are working

24/7, who are giving everything that they can.

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, very soon after your allegations started to come out, when the press started to hear that there were allegations against

Karim Khan, that was later in 2024, rumors started to swirl that you might be a Mossad agent. According to this report, even some inside the ICC found

the timing of the allegations suspicious. You know, what's your response to that? Well, first of all, are you a Mossad agent?

SARAH: No. And if I would be one, I would say I was terrible at it. But no. To work at the court, you have to undergo multiple security clearances.

And because of where I worked in the immediate office, both under former prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and under Mr. Khan, I had to undergo the

highest level of security clearance.

Second of all, if ever there was even a hint of suspicion that I was a state agent of any kind, I would have been dismissed. Why did my

allegations become known to Mr. Khan, and I was able to continue in my role and job, and I continue to be a staff member of the court? That's a huge

security risk, if true.

AMANPOUR: Indeed, to the report, one of the other members of the ICC who was asked about this and your other allegations stated that the idea that

you were a Mossad agent was, quote, "a load of bull." Two things are true, or can be true, that you have allegations, which you've made internally to

them, and that Israel and its supporters have also tried to weaponize this, your allegations, because of this indictment application for arrest

warrants. Why do you think they're being conflated?

SARAH: Well, first of all, I can't speak to any specific state or individual, but I think many parties have, for their own agenda, conflated

the two things. There can be many reasons for it, because it serves certain interests. What I do know is that my complaint was because of what happened

to me, not for any other reason.

And second, that conflation has only helped to distract and deflect from the validity of that complaint. The two things need to be separated.

AMANPOUR: Again, I want to just recap and read from this leaked report that I received, which is the report. You know, they talk about their

overview.

[13:35:00]

They found evidence showing a factual basis to your claim, saying the evidence indicated that his behavior escalated over time, resulting in him

engaging in non-consensual sexual contact with her in his office at his private residence and whilst on mission. Also noted, witness accounts,

contemporaneous conversations with you lend support to the claims. That's the U.N.'s investigative report.

But there's another report, there's another group called essentially the panel of judges. They've come to a slightly different conclusion. They

decided that this could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that these allegations were not proven to that threshold, quote, "The panel is

unanimously of the opinion that the factual findings by OIOS do not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the relevant legal framework."

And Karim Khan says to them that this process has exonerated him.

What is the conflict between these two reports?

SARAH: I'm under confidentiality obligations, so unfortunately, I just -- I can't comment on it. I can only speak to my own experience.

AMANPOUR: OK. In public, Mr. Khan has said to Mehdi Hasan again on Zeteo, it's the opposite of due process. His lawyers have criticized the whole

investigative process as ad hoc, unfair to him, with new bodies and rules created. You can't comment.

SARAH: I would rather not.

AMANPOUR: Despite that, there was a final vote in which the New York Times reports that the three -- despite what the three judges found, the New York

Times reports that the executive body of the Bureau of the Assembly of State Parties, I know this is complex and dense, but it's all the

bureaucratic procedure around this investigation, has found that Mr. Khan committed sexual harassment when engaged in sexual activity with a junior

staff member. He later sought to dissuade his accuser, you, from pursuing the allegations of misconduct. He never clearly denied a sexual

relationship with his subordinate. His later denials were devoid of credibility.

He has been suspended from his role as chief prosecutor, as you know. Again, his lawyer tells the New York Times that the conclusions were

unlawful, procedurally unfair, unsupported by evidence, and that Khan denied, quote, "every specific allegation of sexual interaction of any

kind." His lawyer said that it was unfair that the bureau rested its conclusions on a finding of a consensual sexual relationship rendered

inappropriate by a power imbalance, because you never made that allegation.

What do you think the outcome of their final decision on July 24th will be?

SARAH: I don't know. And it's not up to me. These are state parties. They elected Mr. Khan, and they will make their decision as they see fit. My

reason or why I decided to speak to you has little to do with what they decide on the 24th.

AMANPOUR: What does it have to do with? What is your future at the ICC or wherever?

SARAH: I don't know what my future is. But I know that my story does not change based on the outcome of the vote. And I thought about it long and

hard, and I went back and forth for days about what the right thing is to do. And sitting here, I'm still not sure if this is the right thing to do.

And even in terms of timing, if I decided to go ahead and I did it after the vote, and Mr. Khan is not removed as prosecutor, people would say,

she's being vindictive, she's unhappy with it. So, you know, she's doing this. If I did it before, they would say she's trying to influence the

vote. And if I didn't do it at all, I will forever be known as a possible state agent.

But larger than that, I think the main factor for me is during the last few years, Mr. Khan has had a name, a reputation, and a title. And I have been

known as VO1 and anonymized. And that is meant to protect a victim who comes forward or a complainant.

[13:40:00]

But that also has had the opposite effect in that it has allowed me to be crafted in whatever way suits another person. And there's been this

caricature drawn. A state agent, a gold digger, crazy, emotional, a compulsive liar.

And there are thousands of women who will never have the opportunity to sit with you. And this is not unique to my circumstances. This happens every

day.

And for me, what I want out of this is, at the very least, for people to consider the various ways in which we deflect from legitimate allegations,

the ways in which we question the credibility of someone, even when there's nothing to it. And we give it an engine to drive.

AMANPOUR: How do you feel today about all of this?

SARAH: Incredibly nervous. Humiliated. I expect a lot of backlash once this goes public. It's not an easy thing to do. But I also think it's very

important.

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about the bigger issue of the court. The investigation, obviously, is long and drawn out. It's been criticized on

all sorts of grounds. Even Kenneth Roth, the former head of Human Rights Watch, has said publicly the procedure that everything has taken has been,

quote, "a travesty."

How do you view it? How do you think it's impacted the reputation of the ICC, which was designed, as you said, to bring justice to the world and

hold the worst criminals accountable?

SARAH: Long before I joined the court, there has always been pressures on the court, even during Prosecutor Bensouda's time. And there will always be

criticisms. But I don't believe that the legitimacy of the court should stand on the reputation of any one man. This is not a spectacle. This is

not Hollywood.

At the end of the day, this is a complaint. And what the court and other institutions do with such a complaint adds to its legitimacy. It doesn't

take away from it. It shows that they are willing to take possible misconduct seriously. I believe that the court will, of course, continue to

face pressures going forward.

But I also believe that the court will continue to function. And we also have to recognize that no institution in this world is perfect. The fact

that it continues to try to improve itself will only contribute to its strength going forward.

AMANPOUR: Sarah, thank you very much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: When the allegations against Khan first became publicly known, a second accuser also came forward. She spoke to The Guardian anonymously and

to U.N. investigators about unwanted sexual advances she says Khan subjected her to in 2009. We spoke to her. We agreed to not disclose her

identity. And CNN cannot independently corroborate her claims.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PATRICIA, ACCUSES ICC'S KARIM KHAN OF PAST SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, WHICH HE DENIES: The first type of behavior began when my team and I were asked to

work at his house. We began working at his house. And that began a pattern of my going to his house.

[13:45:00]

And every time I went to his house, I felt I needed to fortify myself because without fail, every time I was there, it was a constant onslaught

of him coming on to me, groping me, grabbing me, kissing my face, touching my hair, trying to get me to engage in intimate activity with him, which I

constantly had to bat off. And I felt I had to do it in a way that didn't antagonize him too much.

In the office, on one occasion, I was sitting at my desk and he stood behind me, groping my breasts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Can I just respond with the answers to the allegations by Karim Khan, his lawyers, and you also spoke anonymously to The Guardian newspaper

last year, detailing some of what you've just told me. They say it's wholly untrue that he's engaged in sexual misconduct of any kind, that he

categorically denies having harassed or mistreated any individual or having misused his position or authority or engaged in any conduct that could be

interpreted as coercive, exploitative or professionally inappropriate.

PATRICIA: The reason I came forward after so many years is because at the time it happened to me, I felt very isolated. And as many people do under

these circumstances, I felt that perhaps I was the only person who had experienced these behaviors. When, after a decade, I read The Guardian

article with the other allegations, my heart sank.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: We asked Karim Khan to sit for an interview with us. His legal team said it would not be appropriate at this time, but they offered us the

option of speaking to his lead counsel, Sareta Ashraph. Here's our conversation with her.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Sareta Ashraph, welcome to the program. We should note that you have not seen the interviews in question, but that we did send you detailed

lists of allegations that both women made in advance of this interview.

So, firstly, Mr. Khan has given several media interviews and public appearances in recent weeks, speaking also about this subject. But when we

invited him onto the program, we were told, quote, "it would not be appropriate at this time." Why is he not able to join today and you are the

one joining us?

SARITA ASHRAPH, LEAD COUNSEL FOR KARIM KHAN: Well, thank you for having me here. When Mr. Khan spoke to the media, it was after the delivery of a

report of a panel of judges, an independent panel of judges, who reached a unanimous determination that the evidence did not establish misconduct or

breach of duty on the part of Mr. Khan.

At that point, we thought the process would move forward as it ought to have moved forward, with the Bureau accepting the recommendation of the

panel of judges that it itself selected and appointed, and to move to close the matter. It was at that point that Mr. Khan, who had not spoken

throughout the entire process, came out expecting the matter to be moved towards closing. It has now become clear that that is not the path that

this is taking.

In what I would consider to be an extraordinary step, a subset of 13 states in the Bureau has refused to accept the ruling of the independent panel of

judges and has reached the diametrically opposite conclusion based on the same evidence.

AMANPOUR: Yes. And I'm specifically going to ask you to address some of the allegations, and you have seen a long list of them, a very detailed

list of allegations, and we have addressed them in our interviews with the two women, as well.

But let me ask you this. Yes, the panel of judges said, as you said, but also the other investigative body, the OIOS, suggested that actually there

had been misconduct, and a number of members of the states did recommend that he be suspended pending another vote, which will be on July 24th, with

all these member states. So, let's just make that absolutely clear that he is suspended currently pending the conclusion of that vote.

But victim number one, she alleges an escalating pattern of behavior, including nonconsensual groping and penetration, including while she

pretended to be asleep. To all intents and purposes, she says she was asleep. She also said that due to the power differential between her and

her boss, Mr. Khan, any sexual relationship could not have been consensual. What is your response to this?

ASHRAPH: These -- first of all, we would like to say that these are serious allegations, and they needed to be taken seriously, investigated

seriously, and undergo a serious judicial review, and that is what has happened.

[13:50:00]

The allegations that are presented in your program are not new allegations. They are allegations which form part of a much larger body of evidence. Mr.

Khan has denied and continues to deny them in their entirety, any form of sexual contact relationship, consensual or nonconsensual with the

complainant.

In this particular case, I also want to emphasize, as you said at the beginning, that the OIS report had made factual findings and this different

from the panel of judges. One thing I want to make really clear to your viewers is that the OIS report does not have the same standing as the panel

of judges.

OIS spent 13 months investigating this case. They interviewed over 30 witnesses. They collected over 5,600 pages of material, including telephone

records and messages records. And from that, they produced a large number of conflicting narratives. You're looking at a very small sliver of

evidence against a much larger body of evidence, all of which the judges took into account, and the judges are the ones who applied the standard of

proof before reaching a finding that the evidence did not establish. The findings, the facts found by OIS did not establish misconduct or breach of

duty on the part of Mr. Khan.

AMANPOUR: As I said to you and as you know, because we presented you with detailed, you know, results of our interviews, we used a lot of the

evidence that you all and Mr. Khan also delivered. So, let's just be very clear about that.

I would like to ask you about this. In the OIS report, there's testimony from a witness that she said she had thoughts of harming herself and that

she had told this to Mr. Khan. What is your response to that?

ASHRAPH: With regard to that allegation, no medical evidence was presented to OIS. Mr. Khan does not recollect ever being informed of that. But

certainly, if there were fragilities, if there were mental health concerns or vulnerabilities of particular individuals, that may have been the case.

We obviously can't speak to someone's mental health, but certainly that did not result from any conduct on the part of Mr. Khan.

AMANPOUR: What about the second accuser, who in public has been called in another media operation, Patricia, alleging that approximately 16 years

ago, when she was an intern for Mr. Khan, that he subjected her to sexual harassment, she says, constantly coming on to her, trying to get her to

engage in intimate activity. Also alleging that in the years between her allegations and the witness who we're talking about, the main witness, Mr.

Khan, or rather the main victim, Mr. Khan has only become more powerful and emboldened and accustomed to more and more impunity, meaning that bad

behavior unchecked simply has gotten worse. What is your response to that?

ASHRAPH: Again, these are not new allegations. These are allegations which form part of the investigation that OIOS did. Mr. Khan denies them in their

entirety. In the case of this particular individual, she kept in contact with Mr. Khan for many years after she exited the world of international

criminal law with a very positive relationship for a very long time.

So, we deny these allegations in their entirety, but they're also not new allegations. They're allegations which have formed part of the evidential

record and which were seen alongside the evidence of over 30 other witnesses, as well as the evidence of Mr. Khan himself. The complete

evidential picture paints a far different picture than has been presented here today. And so, we are obviously concerned at the timing of this coming

out. It does place pressure in an already, an environment which has become more political than legal.

The decision to come on and present one part of a very much larger overall picture risks putting a thumb on the scales of the 24th of July vote.

That's something that we're very concerned about. We would hope that your viewers would understand and at least recognize that there is a huge host

of evidence and information that the judges had access to, that we hope that the Bureau and ASP members will access, that simply the wider public

does not.

AMANPOUR: You've just talked about the process and you have complained about the process and expressed concern about it. So, can I ask you then,

you are in New York where this vote that is going to take place will happen on Friday the 24th of July. Have you or any of Mr. Khan's team or he

himself been attempting to lobby or influence member states ahead of this vote?

ASHRAPH: I am in New York. We are seeking, we have invited member states who have any questions about the evidence to ask us about the evidence. So,

we are making ourselves available not necessarily to lobby but to allow them to ask us questions, to clarify the evidential record, because the

truth is that they're having to do a tremendous amount of work in a very compressed time and it is not clear how well they'll be able to do that

given their other duties -- of the duties in the month that has elapsed between the special session being called and the vote being held.

[13:55:00]

AMANPOUR: Sareta Ashraph, thank you for being with us.

ASHRAPH: Thank you so much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And you can watch the full versions of all our interviews on the program tonight at cnn.com. If you or someone you know has been affected by

the issues we've discussed in this show and needs help, call the U.S. Sexual Assault Hotline 24/7 at 1-800-656-4673, provided by RAINN. And

internationally, a worldwide list of directories is backed by U.N. Women on Lila.help.

That is it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END