ICC judge calls US pressure ‘most blatant attack on the court’ – interview

Almost immediately after former International Criminal Court (ICC) judge Navi Pillay was announced as this year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Donald Trump’s administration struck the Court with sweeping sanctions. For ICC judge Kimberly Prost, however, the pressure from Washington is nothing new: the Canadian judge has been under personal US sanctions for nearly two years. “This is a pretty extraordinary attack on the court,” she tells LRT.lt in an exclusive interview.

When sanctions were imposed on her in February last year, Canadian judge K. Prost felt their impact immediately: her payment cards issued in the Netherlands and Canada were blocked. Although she managed to retain access to a few bank accounts, banking services remain very limited, and even small transfers are often blocked. The judge also lost access to paid services provided by Apple, Google, and Amazon, as well as the ability to travel to the United States. Even a French company distanced itself from the sanctioned judges and decided to stop paying their health insurance claims.

The latest blow from the United States is the imposition of sanctions on the ICC itself, aimed at financially paralysing the court.

“We're working to be resilient, but it's a very serious matter, which is why it's so important that everyone understands what's going on,” she stresses.

In an ironic twist, Prost, who recently visited Vilnius, was participating in the #Disinfo2026 conference, for which Lithuania also reportedly withdrew its support following pressure from the United States, according to media reports.

Nevertheless, despite the US attack on the ICC, K. Prost insists that it will neither break the judges’ resolve nor bring their work to a halt.

“The court will continue its important mandate to render justice,” she emphasizes.

You were sanctioned by the US a little over a year ago. What was your first reaction when you learnt about this?

We all – all of the judges, the elected officials and staff – knew that the executive order was there and they had always indicated that individuals would be added to the list as they were going along. It wasn't totally unexpected in the sense that I broadly knew that.

But I think I was taken aback because I didn't particularly see the basis where I was concerned, given my work. I just sort of processed it for a few minutes and then realized, okay, I'm going to have to adjust to this new reality.

Ironically, I worked for five years as the ombudsperson for the Security Council Al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee, so I was very familiar. I interviewed a lot of people subject to UN sanctions, but as it went along, it became clear that until you really experience it yourself, you don't have the entire perspective on what it's like.

How it has affected you personally and in your daily life?

It really does permeate your daily life because it affects things that are so average and sort of assumed.

First of all, all your credit cards are immediately canceled no matter what country they are issued. So, my cards were in Canada and in the Netherlands were immediately canceled, because of the influence of the United States in the financial and the SWIFT system.

Then there's the panic about banking services because literally banks can decide they don't want to do business with you, that could be a business decision even if they're, not American banks. <…>

Then there's all these services that are so permeating in our lives: computers, so “Apple”, “Apple Wallet” was gone obviously. “Google”, any services that are paid for. And you don't know what's going to be canceled and what's not, there's been a variation between the judges. So, the randomness also makes it even worse in some ways because there's no predictability. I make bank transfers, my bank will assist me, but will other banks receive the money or can people send from their banks to me? <…>

Then there's just the whole psychological effect of this, which is I've been in criminal justice work for pretty well all of my life, my colleagues – in human rights, criminal justice, and you're suddenly on a list with those purported to be involved in human rights violations, terrorism, and organized crime. You're put in the same category, that's very hard.

That just gives some of the idea of what we're dealing with. Obviously, I can't go to the United States. For some of my colleagues who have, for example, children in the United States, their visas get canceled or it's very complicated if you have a spouse or a child who happens to be American. I don't have those factors, although my siblings in Canada are very nervous about crossing the border. So far, they've made it.

The US say that you were sanctioned for your role in authorizing the ICC's investigation into US personnel in Afghanistan. Could you explain your this decision, and why do you think the sanctions were imposed?

I'm not really sure to tell you the truth.

My involvement is very limited. Six years ago, before this administration even took power, I sat on the appeals chamber temporarily, I'm a trial judge, replacing a judge, and we were faced with an appeal by the prosecutor of a pretrial decision refusing the authorization for the investigation in Afghanistan.

Why I was sanctioned six years after that, I have no idea.

This was at the very beginning, all of the allegations of a horrific crime by Taliban, ISIS, various military forces, and including a component of US officials and their activities in Afghanistan.

We unanimously, on the basis of what I consider overwhelming evidence and clear law, authorized the prosecutor to conduct the investigation, including the US portion. Now, the footnote to that is that about two years after, the prosecutor, who's faced with many competing areas of varying situations, decided to deprioritize the American component and focus on the other crime in Afghanistan and other situations.

So there is no investigation into the American component of Afghanistan, and I have no other involvement in anything, any of the investigations into the Israel-Gaza situation or Afghanistan.

And so why I was sanctioned six years after that, I have no idea.

I want to talk a bit about the broader pressure. President Trump and members of his administration have been highly critical of the ICC. At the UN he even described the court as “out of control”, you – “evil group of people,” and urged countries to leave the court. Has the ICC ever faced this level of political pressure?

Well, this is a unique angle. The ICC has long had issues that can involve geopolitics, if you put it that way, and these kinds of pressures. The United States, for example, at the early days under the Bush administration, was carrying out a campaign to have states who were parties, sign these, what we called Article 98 agreements, that they would never turn over US personnel. So that was a part of the same objection. But I would say this is pretty extreme.

I do have colleagues though, who are also subject to arrest warrants from the Russian Federation and have been convicted in absentia for their work related to the file in Ukraine. <…>

But this is a pretty extraordinary attack on the court. And what I emphasize here it's not because, “woe is me with what's happened in my life”. I can tell you, I sat on the Srebrenica trial, and I've sat on trials at the ICC, and what I see in people's lives by comparison, this is annoyances. But it's the purpose (and this is what makes this distinct), it's the most blatant attack rendered against the independence of judges and the rule of law – you must decide the cases the way we want or you must not do your job, or we're going to impose these measures.

That's a pretty shocking position for the government of the United States to take, in my view.

It's the most blatant attack rendered against the independence of judges and the rule of law

Following from that, when judges become targets of sanctions, and when the US appears to be actively and very openly devaluating the court's work, how significant of a risk is this, as you say, attack on the court, and how it affects the court's judicial independence?

I can assure you that it doesn't affect the court's judicial independence, and I think I've been very clear in every interview to say we will continue. We will continue to look at the evidence, the facts, apply the law, and do so objectively. Objectively, either way, not in favor, not in fear.

We will continue to do our job that way, and the court will continue its important mandate to render justice in these situations. I have no concern that that's ever going to stop. I don't see this as the end of the ICC, the Rome statute system or international law.

But we have to understand the seriousness of this attack. The secretary of state Marco Rubio said, “We want to tear down the ICC brick by brick,” in addition to the comments of the president in the General Assembly.

So their aim here is now no longer even a matter of speculation, and that's what we need to address. And these measures that they're using can be very crippling. They're not going to affect our core work, but all of the energy resources that have to be sent away from other measures we could be taking, are directed towards trying to protect the court, and now that's the threat – that they're going to hit the institution, which obviously has all sorts of implications for contracts and salary payments and all of those matters.

We're working to be resilient, but it's a very serious matter, which is why it's so important that everyone understands what's going on.

One of the biggest criticisms of international justice is that it struggles to reach the most powerful. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet it is quite difficult at the moment to imagine either of them appearing before the court. What do you think needs to happen for such political figures to eventually stand a fair trial?

I'll answer that question sort of in the abstract.

I will say about the process: we have issued those arrest warrants for those individuals. Arrest warrants carry a lot of meaning in and of themselves. There are legal determinations made not just by the prosecutor, but by a chamber, that there's sufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of these arrest warrants. And all of our states' parties are under an obligation to arrest. So that's the process.

More broadly, though, I think if you look at the overall history of international criminal justice, we are not the first court to issue arrest warrants implicating sitting heads of states. Obviously, there was the case of The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of Slobodan Milošević and in addition, Charles Taylor in the Sierra Leone court was the subject also of proceedings.

What will happen in the ICC cases, only time will tell. But in those cases, it became a question of a long process. And ultimately, both Mr. Taylor and Mr. Milošević were tried. Mr. Milošević died before verdict, and Charles Taylor was convicted.

But I think it evidences that it is possible. It's certainly possible that arrest warrants will be executed, that the law will apply equally to everyone. And that's what the Rome Statute says – disregard official title capacity. So, I still believe that is always possible, and I hope that is possible as well in the context of the ICC. I know it is.

What we will see factually, only time will tell.

Lithuania has been one of the strongest advocates for accountability for crimes committed during Russia's war in Ukraine. We play an important role in a Special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. I don't know if you saw, in Vilnius there is a large sign addressed to Russian president, which reads, “Putin, The Hague Is Waiting For You.” So again, I want to come back to this question that it is hard to imagine that he will appear there. How you personally view justice in such cases?

It's a great question. Ask me that on March 10th, 2027, at 5:00 PM, when I'm no longer a sitting judge.

I'm happy to speak to my vision of international criminal justice and the execution of these warrants. And I would say that, for example, back when I was at The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Milošević had already been arrested, but I know people who were there at the very beginning who expressed the view that Mr. Milošević would never appear in the Tribunal.

Again, we look at the whole process, what international justice can do and we'll have to wait and see.

But the specific case, I'll just not comment on that.

And we do have Rodrigo Duterte. He's no longer head of state, but he arrived, and those warrants were also issued when he was still a sitting head of state. So time will tell.

Lithuania is a very important and has been a very active supporter of the ICC throughout the life of the court. Very committed, and I hope that that will continue.

Lithuania is so invested in the ICC because of our strong support for Ukraine. Lithuania in general shows very strong support for the ICC, but at the same time, we are receiving some signals from Washington. It has been said to Lithuania that the question of the ICC is particularly relevant for the countries hosting the US troops. As you know, with geopolitical and war threats, it is a very disturbing question for us. Although, I have to say that the US have not said explicitly yet that they will withdraw the troops, if we remain the member of the court.

What would you say to such countries as ours, which strongly support the ICC and international justice, but also face geopolitical pressure?

I would be simply taking that to a very high level. Lithuania is a very important and has been a very active supporter of the ICC throughout the life of the court. Very committed, and I hope that that will continue.

Every country has to manage their relationships with states. My country has to manage a relationship with United States, for example. I simply hope that every country will prioritize what is for me so fundamental to, as I like to refer to it, our global village, which is the rule of law, justice for victims and an end to impunity for atrocity crime.

And I hope that they will find other ways, I hope all our states will find ways through diplomacy, through support, through statements send a very clear message that they're always willing to engage and to consult, but those are our values and principles that have to be maintained. I very much hope that, and I am pretty confident that Lithuania will continue with that path.

To echo what the Prime Minister of the Netherlands Rob Jetten said in the General Assembly, which we're all quoting now quite a bit, “Hands off the ICC”.

So that's my hope.