Sanctioned for Justice: How Washington’s Sanctions Reached Beyond the ICC

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (CN) – The pressure hits fast — bank accounts freeze, cards stop working, travel plans are disrupted and even basic work tools go dark — then it spreads to something harder to handle.

This is what US sanctions on people working with the International Criminal Court are starting to look like, as Washington ramps up pressure on investigations involving US citizens and its allies.

In a report released Thursday, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court argues that the damage doesn’t stop with the court’s officials being formally appointed by Washington. Now it extends to the wider justice system that supports the court – from United Nations experts to Palestinian human rights groups, and to the day-to-day mechanics of how evidence is gathered, victims are supported and cases move forward.

“The report shows how the Trump administration has weaponized US banks, IT and services to attack the entire international justice system, from civil society organizations that document crimes, to prosecutors, judges and independent UN experts,” said Alison Smith, director of the coalition.

Justice in question

Based in The Hague, Netherlands, International Criminal Court it is intended to address genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when national systems fail to do so. It was opened in 2002 and now has 125 member states under the Rome Statute. The United States never joined and has long rejected the idea that the court could try Americans or leaders of close US partners.

That clash is old. The pressure campaign is not.

For Washington, the ICC is not just a sovereignty dispute. It is the court that looked into reported crimes linked to US forces in Afghanistan, pushed forward its investigation into the situation in Palestine and issued orders related to the Israel-Gaza war. With the Russia-Ukraine war still active and the current US-Israel-Iran conflict raising the stakes, the battle over the court has become part of a larger fight over who will police the world’s most explosive conflicts.

This time, Washington used sanctions with a global reach. Because much of the world still goes through U.S. banks, payment systems and technology platforms, an executive order could disrupt life away from Washington. It started in February 2025 with sanctions Prosecutor of the ICC, Karim Khanthen spread to other prosecutors, judges, An expert Francesca Albanese and Palestinian civil society groups.

“I was Donald Trump’s first guinea, to see how much we would be hurt by these sanctions,” Khan said in the report.

Those targeted said the effects reached far beyond travel bans or US-based asset freezes. Some lost access to bank accounts, cards and payment services. Others said transfers were blocked, non-US bank accounts were closed and family members were affected. Some said their children’s US visas were also revoked.

“One of the most painful things about the sanctions is the impact on my family,” ICC judge Gocha Lordkipanidze said in the report. And Khan said a transfer to his ex-wife for their children caused her bank account to freeze. Judges nearing the end of their terms said they did not know if they would be able to move money out of Europe.

“We are in limbo,” ICC judge Solomy Balungi Bossa said in the report.

The disruption also affected daily life. Officials said access to email, cloud storage, apps and services associated with companies such as Apple, Amazon and PayPal was disrupted or limited, while hotel and travel reservations could be canceled without warning. Some said their Apple IDs had been blocked, leaving them blocked from accessing iCloud and apps. ICC judge Beti Hohler said a friend who sent her a Christmas gift through Amazon ended up having his Amazon accounts suspended.

Inside the court, judges and prosecutors said that the pressure was aimed not only at them as individuals, but also at the independence of the institution.

“Judges make decisions based on the law and the facts,” Bossa said. “If we are punished for our decisions as judges, it is terrible for the rule of law and for the independence of the judiciary.”

When the grid expands

The threat does not stop at the entrance to the court.

The ICC cannot do its job alone. Where investigators cannot easily reach, he relies on outside groups to document abuses, identify victims and help build cases. And according to the coalition, Washington should not close the court to damage it. Pressure on the network around the court can still stifle investigations and make justice more difficult to deliver.

Palestine is one of the clearest examples. Long before US sanctions, these outside groups were already operating under raids, surveillance, smear campaigns and “terrorist” labels rejected by European governments and UN experts. Then Washington added another layer.

The Trump administration first targeted Addameer, a Palestinian prisoners’ rights group, in June 2025 under a separate US sanctions program. In July, it sanctioned Francesca Albanese, the UN expert on Palestinian rights. Then, in September, it moved against Al-Haq, Al Mezan and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, three groups that document abuses, support victims and push for accountability.

Bank accounts were frozen or closed. Wages became more difficult or impossible to pay. US staff and dual nationals had to leave. Donors withdrew. Websites, social media accounts and digital services were disrupted. The archives built up over the years were suddenly endangered.

For organizations in Gaza and the West Bank, this meant more than administrative problems. It threatened the basic infrastructure of their work.

“The whole rationale of the sanctions was to silence us, stop us from doing our job, terrify us and terrify others,” Issam Younis, director of Al Mezan, told the coalition.

UN investigators, ICC staff and other international monitors are often denied access to the occupied Palestinian territories, making local organizations like Younis crucial to gathering evidence, identifying victims and preserving material that can later be used in court.

And critically, the impact extends to the victims as well. The coalition says the sanctions spread to witness support, legal representation, evidence gathering and the broader ecosystem behind international criminal cases.

“The entire system of the Rome Statute is designed to serve victims. Any attack against the ICC through any means or measure to impede the delivery of its mandate directly affects victims,” ​​said Deborah Ruiz Verduzco, executive director of the ICC Trust Fund for Victims.

Some of the most important effects may never be fully apparent.

“The biggest risk of sanctions is not for those who have already been sanctioned, but for the hundreds of people who will not make the decisions they need to make because they are afraid,” ICC judge Nicolas Guillou told the coalition. “If judges are afraid to judge, prosecutors are afraid to prosecute, and lawyers are afraid to defend, we are no longer in a state ruled by law. Fear means there is no justice.”

Officials interviewed for the report warned that if a court supported by more than 120 states can be pressured by sanctioning judges over their decisions, the same tactic could be used against national judges, regulators and other international courts.

Khan put it more broadly: “What will happen to the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and other international organizations?” he asked. “We have to look at the whole architecture.”

Not all objectives are equal

Some ICC judges from less powerful countries said they were hit earlier and harder than colleagues from wealthier or more politically influential states involved in the same rulings. Bossa, from Uganda, said she and a colleague from Peru were initially singled out, while judges from Canada, the United Kingdom and Poland on the same bench were not.

“We had the impression that we were sanctioned because we come from countries that do not have that much weight in the international sphere,” said Bossa. “The discrimination hurt a lot.”

The disparity also appeared in the response. Some governments were quick to speak up for their citizens, while others remained silent. And while sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors drew public support from states and international officials, the reaction when Palestinian civil society groups were targeted was much more muted.

This stood out because Europe had reacted differently before. When Israel labeled several Palestinian rights groups as “terrorist organizations” in 2021, a number of European governments publicly backed down and continued to support them. This time, the obvious defense was much harder to find.

What emerged was a patchwork: support depended on who was targeted and whether their government intervened. ICC member states and the European Union have yet to build a broad and coordinated response, leaving some of those hardest hit, particularly civil society groups, much more exposed.

Supporters test

This is no longer just a clash between Washington and a court. It is a test of whether the states that have built the ICC system are willing to defend it.

The fixes presented in the report are concrete: Use the EU blocking statute, tell banks and service providers not to over-comply, protect access to basic financial services, end dependence on US-controlled infrastructure, and publicly defend not only ICC officials, but also civil society groups and UN actors intended to work with the court.

Most of these defenses, however, still sit on the shelf. The problem, the coalition suggests, is less a lack of means than a lack of political will. Brussels still prefers diplomatic outreach and targeted regulation, although banks and service providers are left to manage the pressure themselves.

Zoé Paris, advocacy coordinator at the coalition, said the message across the interviews was clear: Those targeted are still on the loose, but ICC member states and the European Union have yet to take the coordinated response needed to protect the court and the wider international justice system.

However, people caught in the middle keep saying the same thing. They don’t back down.

“They want to silence us, but we will not accept it,” said Shawan Jabarin of Al-Haq.

And ICC judge Reine Alapini-Gansou gave the clearest answer of all: “These measures have no effect on our commitment to our work. Victims around the world are waiting and watching us.”

Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.