Pre‑Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court has ruled that the court may exercise jurisdiction in the case of The Prosecutor v. Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri, determining the matter unanimously after a defence challenge.
Background and jurisdictional challenge
The decision follows a legal objection lodged by El Hishri’s team on 30 April under article 19 of the Rome Statute, which argued the ICC lacked authority because the alleged conduct and the accused are connected solely to Libya — a state that is not party to the Statute. The Chamber rejected that submission, pointing to a prior United Nations Security Council referral.
In February 2011 the UNSC, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, referred the situation in Libya to the ICC pursuant to article 13(b) of the Rome Statute. That referral was central to the Chamber’s reasoning and formed the legal basis for the court’s jurisdiction in the present proceedings.
Allegations and procedural history
El Hishri, alleged by the Office of the Prosecutor to have held senior authority within the armed group known as the Special Deterrence Force, faces 17 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes said to have been committed in Libya between 1 May 2014 and 30 June 2020. The allegations concern conduct at Mitiga prison, near Tripoli, with the prosecution asserting he exercised control over the facility and personally engaged in acts including torture, mistreatment, sexual abuse and killings of detainees.
He first appeared before the court in December 2025, following his detention by German authorities in July of that year. A confirmation of charges hearing was held from 19 to 21 May 2026. That procedure examines whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe the suspect committed the charged offences; if charges are confirmed the matter moves to a Trial Chamber.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Number of counts | 17 |
| Alleged period | 1 May 2014 – 30 June 2020 |
| Location | Mitiga prison, near Tripoli |
| First ICC appearance | December 2025 |
| Confirmation hearing | 19–21 May 2026 |
Legal and diplomatic implications
The Chamber’s finding confirms that an earlier UN Security Council referral can extend the ICC’s reach into situations in states that have not acceded to the Rome Statute. That principle has been deployed in previous situations and remains a pivotal tool for the court where the Security Council has found threats to international peace and security.
The ruling does not determine guilt or innocence; it relates solely to whether the court has the authority to proceed. The defence’s challenge was procedural and focused on the court’s competency rather than on the merits of the allegations.
- The decision enables the prosecution to continue seeking confirmation of charges and, if confirmed, to request the matter be committed to trial.
- It highlights the continuing role of UN Security Council referrals in enabling ICC jurisdiction in non‑State Party territories.
- It follows the arrest of the accused by German authorities and his transfer to ICC custody for proceedings.
The Chamber’s unanimous determination on jurisdiction clears a key procedural hurdle. The court will now proceed with the next steps of the confirmation process; a formal determination on confirmation of charges is expected in due course under the court’s timetable.
The accused remains entitled to the presumption of innocence until and unless proven guilty in a fair trial.
