Both these cases have an air of injustice about them. But on reflection, and putting Mr Khan’s case in the context of a ‘workplace disciplinary procedure’, I suppose the test is somewhat less demanding than in criminal proceedings. On that basis, he should have had some sort of opportunity to put his case. If the investigatory process did not offer such an opportunity, the smell of injustice persists.
In the second case, the relationship between the chamber and the prosecutor appears strange to unfamiliar eyes like mine. Perhaps there is more to this than has been published so far. Should not the ICC be totally open.
Both these cases have an air of injustice about them. But on reflection, and putting Mr Khan’s case in the context of a ‘workplace disciplinary procedure’, I suppose the test is somewhat less demanding than in criminal proceedings. On that basis, he should have had some sort of opportunity to put his case. If the investigatory process did not offer such an opportunity, the smell of injustice persists.
In the second case, the relationship between the chamber and the prosecutor appears strange to unfamiliar eyes like mine. Perhaps there is more to this than has been published so far. Should not the ICC be totally open.
A panel of judges found for him.
Now, he is not given the chance to test the allegation, nor, give his side of the story.
It damages the reputation of the ICC
Interesting. How exactly does one define "non-consensual sexual relationship with her."? Isn't that rape?
I called it an allegation of “rape” in an earlier piece. Nobody objected.