>> HELLO EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & COMPANY".

HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

SHARING HER STORY, THE WOMAN WHO ACCUSES THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT GOES CAN'T --PUBLIC AFTER A LENGTHY INVESTIGATION.

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 HAS IMPACTED HER.

AND THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ICC ARREST WARRANT OF ISRAEL'S PRIME MINISTER AND DEFENSE MINISTER.

> >> WE HEAR FROM A SECOND ACCUSER, SHE SAYS HE SEXUALLY HARASSED HER IN 2009.

HE DENIES THAT TOO.

WE WILL ALSO HEAR FROM LEAD COUNSEL.

>> "AMANPOUR & COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT.

JIM ATWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

CANDACE KING.

SYLVIA A AND SIMON B ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE STRAUSS FAMILY FOUNDATION.

THE PETER J PETERSON AND JOAN COONEY FUND.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

MONIQUE WARSHAW.

COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.

AND BY CONSTANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO HER STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

>> 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. OVERSIGHT OFFICE KNOWN AS THE O IOS INVESTIGATED CLAIMS AT THE ICC THAT KHAN HARASSED HER AND SUBJECTED HER TO NONCONSENSUAL ACTS.

WE HAVE OBTAINED A COPY OF THAT REPORT WHICH STATES THAT THEY FOUND EVIDENCE SHOWING A FACTUAL BASIS TO HER CLAIMS AGAINST MR.

KHAN.

KHAN DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS AND SAYS IT IS THE FINDING OF A LATER JUDGMENT THAT REALLY MATTERS.

THAT FOUND THE REPORT DOES NOT DISPROVE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT BUT SAYS THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T MEET THE LEGAL THRESHOLD BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES, AND 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'S 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 "BRICK BY BRICK".

IT WAS DURING THIS CAMPAIGN THAT ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST KHAN FIRST EMERGED EMMA BUT CRUCIALLY THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE WOMAN AT THE HEART OF THIS STORY ARE UNCONNECTED TO THE ICC ARREST WARRANT FOR TOP IS REALLY 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 CASE.

KARIM KHAN HAS SPOKEN PUBLICLY IN RECENT WEEKS IN INTERVIEWS AND ADDRESSES BY DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM.

AND TONIGHT, WE HEAR FROM THE WOMAN ACCUSING HIM.

HER NAME IS SARAH, SHE HAS ASKED US NOT TO BROADCAST HER LAST NAME.

SHE HAS WORKED AT THE ICC SINCE 2017 AND IS STILL EMPLOYED THERE.

SHE SAID 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.

>> SARAH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

CAN I JUST START AT THE BEGINNING?

I'D JUST LIKE YOU TO TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW YOU CAME TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, THIS FIELD.

WHAT MOTIVATED YOU?

>> FIRST OF ALL, I AM FROM MALAYSIA.

I AM MUSLIM AND WHEN I WAS 11, MY MOM AND I MOVED TO SINGAPORE.

AND I ATTENDED A SCHOOL CALLED UNITED WORLD COLLEGE.

AND 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 ASSIGNED.

IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT HAD JUST BEEN ESTABLISHED AND IT WAS EVERYTHING THAT APPEALED TO ME.

>> WHEN DID YOU FIRST JOIN?

>> 2017.

END OF 2017 AS AN INTERN.

AND I JOINED THE IMMEDIATE OFFICE.

>> SHE WAS THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR THEN.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SHE HAS SAID THAT YOU WERE A REALLY VERY MOTIVATED, VERY CAPABLE, VERY DILIGENT WORKER.

>> WHAT WAS EXACTLY OUR POSITION THERE?

>> I WAS MAYBE THE OLDEST INTERN.

I STARTED OFF AS AN INTERN AT THE COURT, AND I DID EVENTUALLY ANYTHING THAT WAS ASKED OF ME IN THE IMMEDIATE OFFICE.

DRAFTING SPEECHES AND I WOULD BE THERE TO ASSIST IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE.

>> SO AFTER THAT PERIOD OF TIME 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.

>> I WAS STILL IN THE LEGAL ADVISORY SECTION.

ACTUALLY, I FULLY SUPPORTED HIS ELECTION AS PROSECUTOR.

>> WHY?

>> HE SPOKE ABOUT WORK BASED CULTURE AMONG MANY OTHER THINGS AND I AGREED WITH MANY OF HIS POINTS OF VIEW.

AND I THOUGHT HE WOULD BE A GOOD PROSECUTOR.

>> WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL JOB?

WHAT DID IT ENTAIL?

>> 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 HAVE A CHILD, WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE?

IT WOULD BE PREPARING HIS BRIEFING NOTES, IT WOULD BE I WOULD BE ONE OF FOUR PEOPLE IN HIS IMMEDIATE TEAM AND SO ESSENTIALLY ANYTHING THAT MR.

KHAN NEEDED WE WOULD BE EXECUTING.

>> AND YOU WERE AMENABLE TO THAT.

>> YES.

YES.

>> SO NOW COMES THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ALLEGATIONS ACCORDING TO THE REPORTS WE HAVE OBTAINED.

YOU ALLEGE THAT MR.

KHAN BECAME " MORE AGGRESSIVE "AND EVENTUALLY DIGITALLY PENETRATING YOU.

THESE ARE ALL ALLEGATIONS THAT HE DENIES.

CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT SOME OF THAT?

>> FIRST OF ALL, I CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT WHAT I TOLD THE 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 ARE 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 AND SOCIAL MEDIA.

AND THERE WOULD BE THIS RAGE.

AND SO YOU KIND OF VOICE FELT LIKE THE GROUND WAS SHIFTING UNDER YOU.

AND THERE WAS A, I HAVE NO OTHER WAY TO DESCRIBE IT BUT AN ESCALATION.

OF ATTACKS.

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 PHYSICAL NATURE OF IT, BUT IT DIDN'T START THAT WAY.

BECAUSE IT WAS ALMOST KIND OF LIKE ENCROACHMENTS ON THE BOUNDARIES SLOWLY.

NOT JUST PHYSICALLY BUT EMOTIONALLY AS WELL.

>> CAN I JUST READ SOME OF WHAT, I KNOW YOU CAN'T COMMENT ON THE REPORT BUT WE'VE SEEN THE 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 INDIRECTION UNWELCOME OR INAPPROPRIATE.

AND RECENTLY YOU'VE SEEN AND MANY PEOPLE HE HAVE SEEN AN INTERVIEW IN WHICH HE CATEGORICALLY DENIED HAVING ANY KIND OF RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU.

I KNOW YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE REPORT.

BUT WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THOSE DENIALS?

>> THERE IS MANY WAYS 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 AND HE WAS EVERYONE'S BOSS.

HE IS THE BOSS OF ALL BOSSES.

AND IT CANNOT BE CONSENSUAL.

I WILL GIVE YOU TWO EXAMPLES.

THERE WAS A POINT IN TIME WHEN I SAID TO MR.

KHAN THAT IF DISCONTINUED I WAS AFRAID THAT I MIGHT DO SOMETHING TO MYSELF.

>> YOU HAD SUICIDAL THOUGHTS.

>> I NEVER USE THAT WORD INTERNALLY BUT I JUST COULDN'T DO IT ANYMORE AND MR.

KHAN UNDERSTOOD FULLY.

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 WEEKS 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.

LET'S TAKE ONE MOMENT.

ONE OF MY EXPERIENCES HAPPENED IN COLUMBIA.

>> ON A MISSION TO VENEZUELA AND COLOMBIA.

>> CORRECT.

AND MR.

KHAN HOTEL ROOM WAS ON THE FLOOR ABOVE MINE.

RIGHT AT THE END OF A HALLWAY.

USUALLY WE 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 IS 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, BUT GO TO IS BOGOTA IS ABOVE SEA LEVEL AND I SAID COULD BE HAVE A LOOK AT THIS OVER DINNER?

WE WERE MEETING WITH AN OFFICIAL DELEGATE.

AND HE SAID I'LL COME DOWN TO YOUR HOTEL ROOM.

IN THAT SPLIT SECOND, I THOUGHT BETWEEN THE TWO BAD OPTIONS THIS WAS THE BETTER OPTION BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T TRY ANYTHING KNOWING THAT THERE WERE TWO STAFF MEMBERS ON EITHER SIDE OF ME.

AND I REMEMBER DISTINCTLY I STOOD VERY CLOSE TO THE DOOR OF MY HOTEL ROOM, HE SHOWED ME THE TEXT MESSAGE AND I SAID I CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THIS.

YOU HAVE TO SEND IT FOR 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 YEAH, MAYBE WE CAN TALK LATER.

HE SAID 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.

AND I PRETENDED TO BE ASLEEP.

NOBODY GOES TO SLEEP THAT QUICKLY UNLESS YOU ARE ON DRUGS OR YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF ALCOHOL.

AND I FELT MR.

KHAN SCOOTS 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 HIS FINGERNAIL MUST HAVE CAUGHT MY SKIN.

I DIDN'T FLINCH, NOTHING.

I JUST WAS STILL.

WE TAKE THAT ONE INCIDENT ALONE.

IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE TO BE ASLEEP THAT IS NOT CONSENT.

YOU CANNOT CONSENT TO THAT.

>> CAN I POINT SOME THINGS OUT THEN IN THIS IDEA?

DID HE THINK IT WAS CONSENSUAL, EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHY THAT COULDN'T BE POSSIBLE FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW OF COURSE.

AND AFTERWARD, ACCORDING TO THE REPORT HE WOULD ASK YOU WHETHER YOU ARE 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 I AM PARAPHRASING YOU WOULD TELL ME IF YOU ARE UNCOMFORTABLE.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> HE WOULD SOMETIMES MENTION THAT.

OR ASK ME THAT QUESTION.

BUT IF YOU KNOW MR.

KHAN HE IS NOT EXPECTING A RESPONSE FROM YOU.

MR.

KHAN DOES WHAT HE WANTS.

AND AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THAT MOMENT WHERE I CLEARLY TOLD HIM IF THIS CONTINUES, I MIGHT HARM MYSELF.

>> KHAN ACCORDING TO THE REPORT SAID THAT YOU DEMONSTRATED CONSTANT INSISTENCE SOMETIMES TO GO ON MISSIONS, WHICH AT LEAST ONE STAFFER AGREED WITH.

>> FIRST OF ALL, MR.

KHAN IS THE BOSS.

NO STAFF MEMBER GETS TO DECIDE IF THEY GO ON A MISSION OR NOT.

THAT'S NOT UP TO US.

>> WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME IS THERE IS A VERY STRICT AND CLEAR HIERARCHY AND THE WORD INSIST YOU AGREE WITH.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> 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 AND SAID THAT THEY HAD ASKED YOU AFTER YOU TOLD HIM ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN VENEZUELA, THEY DIRECTLY ASKED YOU WHETHER HE HAD RAPED YOU AND ACCORDING TO THE REPORT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER BUT LOOKED DOWN AND SHRUGGED.

>> 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 IS 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 AND 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 TO NOT FOCUS ON THAT.

AND JUST DESCRIBE THE EVENTS AS THEY HAPPEN AND I ALSO THINK IT IS JUST MORE ACCURATE.

>> OKAY.

A BIT OF WATER.

TAKE A BREAK.

ARE YOU OKAY?

I NEED TO ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION WHICH IS ABOUT HIS EXPLANATION OF SOMETHING.

YOU STARTED TO EXPLAIN THE CONFIGURATION OF ROOMS ON THIS MISSION.

DENIES THE ALLEGATION COME OF THIS IS MR.

KHAN ACCORDING TO A REPORT DENIES THE ALLEGATION AND TOLD INVESTIGATORS THE PRESENCE OF HIS SECURITY WOULD HAVE MADE ATTEMPTS TO GO TO HER HOTEL ROOM VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

>> 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 TEAM.

AND SO WHETHER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND DRINK MR.

KHAN'S HOTEL ROOM OR MR.

KHAN COMING TO ANY OF OUR ROOMS THAT IS NOT FOR THEM TO DETERMINE.

THE FOUR INDIVIDUALS I MENTIONED, MYSELF INCLUDED PART OF HIS IMMEDIATE TEAM REGULARLY WENT TO HIS HOTEL ROOM.

WHETHER ONE OF US, SEVERAL OF US AND MR.

KHAN COULD CERTAINLY COME TO ANY OF OUR HOTEL ROOMS.

>> AT WHAT POINT DID YOU TELL ANYBODY?

>> 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 OKAY.

AND THAT I WANTED TO LEAVE THE TEAM.

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.

>> THEY ADVISED YOU NOT TO MAKE WAVES AND COME ACROSS AS A THREAT.

>> CORRECT.

AND BY THAT POINT I HAD HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS TO NOT CROSS MR.

KHAN.

>> WHAT DID 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?

>> EVERYTHING.

AND ALTHOUGH 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 EU WHICH MEANS LEAVING MY SON AND MY HUSBAND.

>> THEY ARE DUTCH NATIONALS, YOU ARE NOT.

YOU DIDN'T TAKE THEIR DUTCH NATIONALITY.

>> OF COURSE, I CAN APPLY FOR IT BUT THERE IS A PERIOD OF TIME I WOULD HAVE TO RETURN TO MALAYSIA AS I UNDERSTAND AND APPLY THROUGH THE EMBASSY AND WHILE THAT IS 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 AM HER ONLY CHILD AND THERE WERE A LOT OF, SHE WAS IN AND OUT OF THE E. R. EVERY THREE OR FOUR WEEKS.

SHE NEEDED 24 SEVEN CARE.

>> I WANT TO GET TO ANOTHER PART OF THE REPORT.

ONE KEY OFFICIAL CLOSE TO MR.

KHAN IN THE COURT SPOKE ALSO TO THE INVESTIGATORS AND SAID SOMETHING VERY, VERY BAD WAS UP.

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 THE INDIVIDUAL, MR.

KHAN'S FACE WENT WHITE AND HE ASKED WHETHER THE COMPLAINT WAS MALE OR FEMALE, UPON LEARNING 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.

AND HE ALSO ADDED HIS RESIGNATION WOULD BE SEEN AS HIM RUNNING AWAY FROM THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE.

WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT.

HE FURTHER GOES ON TO SAY, THIS IS THE PERSON WHO TALKED 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 EMERGED, BUT YOU REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH THEM AND THAT CLOSED THEIR INVESTIGATION.

IS THAT THE CASE?

WHY WOULD YOU REFUSE TO COOPERATE?

>> I CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS OF 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 TO STOP.

THAT'S IT.

>> KHAN SAYS HE TOLD INVESTIGATORS THAT HE SUGGESTED A LATERAL MOVE OUT OF HIS OFFICE AS A GOOD CAREER OPPORTUNITY BUT YOU CHOSE TO STATE IN THE OFFICE INSTEAD.

>> WHAT I HAVE ARE NUMEROUS TEXT MESSAGES WHERE I DISCUSSED 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.

>> DESPITE ALL THESE ALLEGATIONS, VERY SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS, YOU DID KEEP UP A FRIENDLY CORRESPONDENCE WITH HIM.

EVEN AFTERWARDS.

YOU SENT ONCE A HEART ENERGY TO HIM, A BIRTHDAY CARD IN MARCH OF 2024 HIM A FULL YEAR INTO THE ABUSE YOU SAY YOU SUFFERED.

CAN I READ FROM THE CARD?

FOR YEARS I HAD ADMIRED YOU FROM AFAR AS A LAWYER, TODAY WE HAVE BECOME FAR MORE TO ME.

I CELEBRATE THE ENTIRE OF THE PERSON I'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW.

YOU ARE KIND, EMPATHETIC, FUNNY AND FORMIDABLE.

YOU'VE GIVEN YOU NAME BACK SO MUCH.

FOR THIS I AM ETERNALLY GRATEFUL.

WHAT WERE YOU THINKING THEN ABOUT WHY YOU WROTE THAT?

>> FIRST OF ALL, 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.

I WAS LESS OF A THREAT AND I WOULD BE ABLE TO BETTER EVADE HIS PHYSICAL ADVANCES.

>> DID YOU EVER GO TO THE MEDIA?

>> NO.

>> WE ARE 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?

>> 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 OKAY?

SOMETHING IS WRONG, SOMETHING IS UP TO ME 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.

>> LET'S STOP THERE, THIS IS PART OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN PUBLIC.

SO AS YOU REMEMBER BECAUSE I THINK YOU WERE THERE, IN MAY OF 2024 I INTERVIEWED KARIM KHAN AT THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR ABOUT 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 AND THE TWO OR SEVERAL TOP HAMAS OFFICIALS.

THIS TOOK U. S. AND ISRAEL OFFICIALS A SURPRISE.

WHAT WAS YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN ASSISTING WITH THAT WORK?

>> THAT IS SOMETHING I CAN'T COMMENT ON.

>> CAN I ASK YOU HOW YOU VIEWED THE VALIDITY OF THE INVESTIGATION AND APPLICATION?

>> 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 INVESTIGATION.

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 WORK.

AND WE TALK ABOUT THE ICC BUT IS ALSO STAFF MEMBERS.

SO IF I CAN FORWARD, MY COMPLAINT COULD HAVE AN EFFECT.

ON MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE WORKING 24/7 WERE GIVING EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN'T-- CAN.

>> VERY SOON AFTER YOUR ALLEGATIONS STARTED TO COME OUT WHEN THEY 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.

WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?

FIRST OF ALL, ARE YOU A MOSSAD AGENT?

>> 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 THE FORMER PROSECUTOR AND UNDER MR.

KHAN I HAD TO UNDERGO THE HIGHEST LEVEL 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 CONTINUED TO BE A STAFF MEMBER OF THE COURT?

THAT'S A HUGE SECURITY RISK IF TRUE.

>> 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 "A LOAD OF BULL".

TWO THINGS CAN BE TRUE.

THAT YOU HAVE ALLEGATIONS WHICH YOU'VE MADE INTERNALLY TO THEM AND ALSO THAT ISRAEL AND ITS SUPPORTERS HAVE ALSO TRIED TO WEAPON NICE THIS, YOUR ALLEGATIONS BECAUSE OF THIS INDICTMENT APPLICATION FOR ARREST WARRANTS.

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE BEING CONFLATED?

>> FIRST OF ALL, I CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY SPECIFIC STATES OR INDIVIDUAL BUT I THINK MANY PARTIES HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA CONFLATED THE TWO THINGS.

THERE CAN BE MANY REASONS FOR IT.

BECAUSE IT SERVES AN INTEREST.

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.

>> AGAIN, I WANT TO JUST RECAP AND READ FROM THIS REPORT THAT I RECEIVED.

WHICH IS THE REPORT.

THEY TALK ABOUT THEIR OVERVIEW.

THEY FOUND EVIDENCE SHOWING A FACTUAL BASIS TO YOUR CLAIMS SAYING THE EVIDENCE INDICATED THAT HIS BEHAVIOR ESCALATED OVER TIME RESULTING IN HIDDEN ENGAGING IN NONCONSENSUAL CONTACT WITH HER IN HIS OFFICE, PRIVATE RESIDENCE AND WHILST ON MISSION.

ALSO NOTED WITNESS ACCOUNTS, CONTEMPORANEOUS CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU LEND SUPPORT TO THE CLAIMS.

THAT IS THE U. N. INVESTIGATION REPORT.

BUT, THERE IS ANOTHER REPORT, THERE IS ANOTHER GROUP CALLED ESSENTIALLY THE PANEL OF JUDGES.

THEY'VE COME TO A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, THEY DECIDED THAT IT COULD NOT BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT PROVEN TO THAT THRESHOLD.

"THE PANEL IS UNANIMOUSLY OF THE OPINION THAT THE FIGHT FINDINGS DO NOT ESTABLISH HIS CONDUCT OR REACH DUTY UNDER THE RELEVANT FRAMEWORK. "

AND KARIM KHAN SAYS TO THEM THAT THIS PROCESS HAS EXONERATED HIM.

WHAT IS THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE TWO REPORTS?

>> I AM UNDER CONFIDENTIALITY OBLIGATIONS SO UNFORTUNATELY I JUST CAN'T COMMENT ON IT.

I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO MY OWN EXPERIENCE.

>> OKAY.

IN PUBLIC, MR.

KHAN HAS SAID 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.

>> I WOULD RATHER NOT.

>> DESPITE THAT, THERE WAS A FINAL VOTE.

IN WHICH THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORT THAT THE THREE, DESPITE WHAT THE THREE JUDGES FOUND THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS THAT THE EXECUTIVE BODY OF THE BUREAU OF ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE PARTIES, I KNOW THIS IS COMPLEX AND DENSE BUT IT IS ALL THE BUREAUCRATIC PROCEDURE AROUND THIS INVESTIGATION.

HAS FOUND THAT MR.

KHAN COMMITTED SEXUAL HARASSMENT WITH A JUNIOR STAFF MEMBER.

HE LATER SOUGHT TO DISSUADE HIS ACCUSER, YOU, FROM PURSUING THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT.

HE NEVER CLEARLY DENIED A 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 EVERY SPECIFIC ALLEGATION OF ANY KIND.

HIS LAWYER SAID IT WAS UNFAIR THAT THE RESTED ON THE FINDING OF AIKEN SEXUAL-- A CONSENSUAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP MADE INAPPROPRIATE BY A POWER IMBALANCE BECAUSE YOU NEVER MADE THAT ALLEGATION.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE OUTCOME OF THE FINAL DECISION ON JULY 24th WILL BE?

>> 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 FOR WHY I DECIDED TO SPEAK TO YOU HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH WHAT THEY DECIDE ON THE 24th.

>> WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH?

>> 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 EMMA PEOPLE WOULD SAY SHE IS BEING VINDICTIVE.

SHE'S UNHAPPY WITH IT.

SO SHE'S DOING THIS.

IF I DID IT BEFORE, THEY WOULD SAY SHE IS 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 YEARS, MR.

KHAN HAS HAD A NAME, REPUTATION AND A TITLE.

AND I HAVE BEEN KNOWN AS ANONYMIZED AND THAT IS MEANT TO PROTECT A VICTIM WHO COMES FORWARD.

OR COMPLAINANT.

BUT THAT ALSO HAS HAD THE OPPOSITE EFFECT AND NOT IT HAS ALLOWED ME TO BE CRAFTED IN WHATEVER WAY SUITS ANOTHER PERSON.

AND THERE HAS BEEN THIS CARICATURE DRAWN.

A STATE AGENT, GOLD DIGGER AM A 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 IS NOTHING TO IT.

AND WE GIVE IT AN ENGINE TO DRIVE.

>> HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY ABOUT ALL OF THIS?

>> 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.

>> 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 THE FORMER HEAD OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH HAS SAID PUBLICLY THE PROCEDURE THAT EVERYTHING HAS TAKEN HAS BEEN A TRAVESTY.

HOW DO YOU VIEW IT, HOW DO YOU THINK IT HAS IMPACTED THE REPUTATION OF THE ICC, WHICH WAS DESIGNED AS YOU SAID TO BRING JUSTICE TO THE WORLD AND HOLD THE WORST CRIMINALS ACCOUNTABLE?

>> LONG BEFORE I JOINED THE COURT, THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN PRESSURES ON THE COURT.

EVEN DURING PROSECUTOR 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 STRENGTH GOING FORWARD.

>> SARAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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.

>> 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 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.

>> CAN I JUST RESPOND WITH THE ANSWERS TO THE ALLEGATIONS BY KARIM KHAN, HIS LAWYERS AND YOU'VE ALSO SPOKEN TO THE GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER LAST YEAR DETAILING SOME OF WHAT YOU'VE JUST TOLD ME.

THEY SAY IT IS TOTALLY UNTRUE THAT HE HAS ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT OF ANY KIND.

THAT HE CATEGORICALLY DENIES HAVING HARASSED OR MISTREATED ANY INDIVIDUAL OR HAVING MISUSED HIS POSITION OR AUTHORITY OR ENGAGE IN ANY CONDUCT THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS COERCIVE OR PROFESSIONALLY INAPPROPRIATE.

>> 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.

>> 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.

HERE IS OUR CONVERSATION WITH HER.

>> 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 "IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME".

WHY IS HE NOT ABLE TO JOIN TODAY AND YOU ARE THE ONE JOINING US?

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE.

WHEN MR.

KHAN SPOKE TO THE MEDIA IT WAS AFTER THE DELIVERY TO AN INDEPENDENT PANEL OF JUDGES WHO REACHED THE DETERMINATION THAT THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH MISCONDUCT OR BREACH OF DUTY ON THE PART OF MR.

KHAN.

AT THAT POINT, WE THOUGHT PROCESS WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BUREAU ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PANEL OF JUDGES THAT ITSELF SELECTED AND APPOINTMENT AND TO MOVE THE CLOSE THE MATTER.

IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT MR.

KHAN WHO HAD NOT SPOKEN THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS CAME OUT EXPECTING THE MATTER TO BE MOVED FORWARD CLOSING.

IT HAS NOW BECOME CLEAR THAT IS NOT THE PATH THAT THIS IS TAKING AND WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE AN EXTRAORDINARY STEP, A SUBSET OF STATES AND THE BUREAU HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE RULING OF THE INDEPENDENT PANEL AND HAS REACHED THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION BASED ON THE SAME EVIDENCE.

>> I AM SPECIFICALLY GOING TO ASK YOU TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS.

YOU HAVE SEEN A LONG LIST OF THEM, 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, THE PANEL OF JUDGES SAID AS YOU SAID BUT ALSO THE OTHER INVESTIGATIVE BODY ARE SUGGESTING THAT THERE HAD BEEN MISCONDUCT AND A NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE STATE DID RECOMMEND THAT HE BE SUSPENDED, PENDING ANOTHER VOTE WHICH WILL BE ON JULY 24th WITH ALL THE MEMBER STATES.

LET'S JUST MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT HE IS SUSPENDED CURRENTLY PENDING THE CONCLUSION OF THAT VOTE.

BUT VICTIM NUMBER ONE, SHE ALLEGES ESCALATING PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR INCLUDING NONCONSENSUAL GROPING AND ATTRITION, INCLUDING WHILE SHE PRETENDED TO BE ASLEEP.

TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES SHE SAYS SHE WAS ASLEEP.

SHE ALSO SAYS 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.

>> FIRST OF ALL, THESE ARE SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS AND THEY NEEDED TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

AND UNDERGO A SERIOUS JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

THE ALLEGATIONS PRESENTED IN YOUR PROGRAM ARE NOT NEW ALLEGATIONS, THEY ARE NEW ALLEGATIONS WHICH FORM PART OF A MUCH LARGER BODY OF EVIDENCE.

MR.

KHAN HAS CONTINUED TO DENY THEM IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND ANY FORM OF RELATIONSHIP CONSENSUAL OR NONCONSENSUAL WITH THE COMPLAINANT.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I ALSO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE OIS REPORT HAD MADE OFFENDING-- FACTUAL FINDINGS.

ONE THING I WANT TO WAKE REALLY CLEAR TO THE REVIEWERS IS THE OIS REPORT DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME STANDING AS THE PANEL.

OIS SPENT 13 MONTHS INVESTIGATING, BASED INTERVIEWED OVER 30 WITNESSES, COLLECTED OVER 5600 PAGES OF MATERIAL INCLUDING PHONE RECORDS AND MESSAGES RECORDS AND FROM THAT THEY HAVE PRODUCED A LARGE NUMBER OF CONFLICTING NARRATIVES.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 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 THAT APPLIED THE STANDARD BEFORE FINDING THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH, THE FACTS FOUND BY OIS DID NOT ESTABLISH MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF MR.

KHAN.

>> AS YOU KNOW BECAUSE WE PRESENTED YOU WITH DETAILS, RESULTS OF OUR INTERVIEWS WE USED A LOT OF THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU ALL AND MR.

KHAN ALSO DELIVERED.

LET'S JUST BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THAT.

IN THE REPORT THERE IS TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS THAT SHE SAID SHE HAD THOUGHT OF HARMING HERSELF.

AND THAT SHE HAD TOLD THIS TO MR.

KHAN.

WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?

>> WITH REGARDS TO THE ALLEGATION NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO OIS.

MR.

KHAN DOES NOT RECOLLECT EVER BEING INFORMED OF THAT BUT CERTAINLY IF THERE WERE FRAGILITY, IF THERE WERE MENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS OR VULNERABILITIES OF PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE CASE.

WE CAN'T SPEAK TO THE MENTAL HEALTH BUT CERTAINLY THAT DID NOT RESULT FROM ANY CONTACT WITH KHAN.

>> 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 ONTO HER, TRYING TO GET HER TO ENGAGE IN INTIMATE ACTIVITY AND ALLEGING THAT IN THE YEARS BETWEEN HER ALLEGATIONS AND THE WITNESS WHO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE MAIN WITNESS, 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?

>> THESE ARE NOT NEW ALLEGATIONS, THESE ARE ALLEGATIONS WHICH FORM PART OF THE INVESTIGATION OIS DID.

MR.

KHAN DENIES THEM IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND IN THIS CASE, THE INDIVIDUAL KEPT IN CONTACT FOR MANY YEARS AFTER SHE EXITED THE ROLE WITH A VERY POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

SO WE DENY THESE ALLEGATIONS BUT THEY ARE ALSO NOT NEW ALLEGATIONS, THEY FORM PART OF THE EVIDENCE RECORD AND WERE RECEIVED ALONGSIDE THE EVIDENCE OF OVER 30 OTHER WITNESSES AS WELL AS EVIDENCE FOR 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 ON AN ALREADY ENVIRONMENT WHICH HAS BECOME MORE CRITICAL POLITICAL AND LEGAL.

THE DECISION TO PRESENT ONE PART OF A VERY MUCH LARGER OVERALL PICTURE.

RISKS PUTTING A THUMB ON THE SCALES OF THE 24th OF JULY VOTE.

THAT IS SOMETHING WE ARE 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 MEMBERS WILL ACCESS THAT SIMPLY THE PUBLIC DOES NOT.

>> YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT THE PROCESS AND YOU HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE PROCESS AND EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT IT.

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 BE ATTEMPTING TO LOBBY OR INFLUENCE MEMBER STATES AHEAD OF THIS VOTE?

>> 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 THE LOBBY BUT TO ALLOW THEM TO ASK QUESTIONS.

TO CLARIFY THE EVIDENTIAL RECORD, THEY ARE HAVING TO DO A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK IN A VERY COMPRESSED TIME AND IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW WELL THEY ARE ABLE TO DO THAT GIVEN THEIR OTHER DUTIES.

IN THE MONTH THAT HAS ELAPSED BETWEEN THE SPECIAL SESSION AND THE WORK BEING HELD.

>> THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY THE ISSUES WE'VE DISCUSSED IN THIS SHOW AND NEED HELP McCALL THE U. S. SEXUAL ASSAULT HOTLINE.

AT 1-800-656-4673.

AND INTERNATIONALLY A WORLDWIDE LIST OF DIRECTORIES IS BACKED BY U. N. WOMEN.

THAT IS IT FOR NOW.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING AND GOODBYE FROM LONDON.