Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri confirmation of charges hearing to open before the ICC: A long-awaited step in the fight against impunity in Libya
With these words, S.M., a survivor of Mitiga Prison, captures the significance many victims and survivors attach to the confirmation of charges hearing in the case of The Prosecutor v. Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri, scheduled to open on 19 May 2026 before Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri (‘El Hishri’) is alleged to have been one of the most senior officials at Mitiga Prison in Libya, where thousands of persons were detained for prolonged periods. According to the Prosecution’s Document Containing the Charges, Mr El Hishri is suspected of 17 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed between 1 May 2014 and 30 June 2020, including torture, outrages upon personal dignity, rape, sexual violence and murder of a number of persons detained in Mitiga Prison, and persecution by targeting detainees of Mitiga on the basis of their political or religious views, their perceived position on society, or on the basis of their ethnicity, race or gender.
Pre-Trial Chamber I issued an arrest warrant for Mr El Hishri on 10 July 2025. Following Mr El Hishri’s arrest in Germany on 16 July 2025, he remained in the custody of the German authorities pending the completion of the national proceedings, before his surrender to the ICC on 1 December 2025. On 3 December 2025, Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri had his initial appearance before Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC.
The opening of the confirmation of charges hearing in this case marks a significant milestone in the ICC’s involvement in Libya. It is the first case arising from the Situation in Libya to reach this stage of proceedings before the Court, and the first time that victims of alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Libya may see their experiences examined before an international court. The hearing also serves as a reminder of the historic 2011 referral of the Libya situation by the United Nations Security Council, which was adopted unanimously and without abstentions. Fifteen years later, many victims and survivors still depend on international and extraterritorial justice mechanisms to pursue accountability, as access to justice within Libya itself remains limited and elusive.
This piece delves into the significance of the upcoming confirmation of charges hearing in the case against El Hishri before the ICC. Drawing on perspectives from Libyan and international civil society organisations, victims, survivors, and groups representing affected communities, it explores what this moment means for accountability efforts in Libya, victims’ trust in international justice, and the broader fight against impunity following more than fifteen years of conflict and stalled justice processes.
What is a confirmation of charges hearing?
The upcoming hearing is not a trial, but a crucial procedural stage during which ICC judges determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the suspect, in this case Mr El Hishri, committed each of the crimes charged by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP). At this stage, the judges will not determine whether Mr El Hishri is innocent or guilty.
During the hearing, the Prosecution, the Defence and the Legal Representative of Victims may present evidence and arguments before the judges of Pre-Trial Chamber I. Within 60 days after the hearing, the Pre-Trial Chamber I Judges will confirm, decline or request more evidence on the charges. If the judges determine that sufficient evidence exists, the case will go to the next phase of the proceedings: a trial.
The confirmation of charges hearing is regulated under Article 61 of the Rome Statute. It is an essential part of legal proceedings at the ICC as it protects the rights of the Defence against wrongful and wholly unfounded charges.1
In addition to its procedural importance, civil society organisations from Libya and beyond emphasise that the hearing carries broader significance for victims, survivors, and communities across Libya who have spent years seeking accountability for grave crimes.
A landmark moment for victims and survivors
For many civil society organisations working alongside victims in Libya, the El Hishri case represents a historic moment in a situation where accountability has remained elusive for over 15 years.
“The significance of the upcoming confirmation of charges hearing in the El Hishri case goes far beyond its technical legal dimension,” highlights Ali Omar, Director of Libya Crimes Watch (LCW). LCW welcomes this hearing as a turning point in the Libya situation before the ICC, given that “for the first time, a suspect from Libya is appearing before the ICC to face charges for serious crimes. This is not just about one individual or one case. It signals a shift from years of impunity towards the possibility of real accountability.”
For Lawyers for Justice in Libya (LFJL) “the importance of this case cannot be overstated. It comes after more than 15 years of supporting victims across Libya in their pursuit of justice and accountability, both of which remain out of reach inside Libya. This moment is also a testament to victims themselves, and to their refusal to give up. The Court, the Libyan authorities and the international community must now ensure that this case delivers some measure of justice to victims, and that it reaches beyond The Hague, resonates inside Libya, and contributes to transforming a culture of impunity into one of accountability."
The significance of the case also extends beyond Libya itself. Allison West, Senior Legal Advisor of the International Crimes and Accountability Program at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) stresses how “prisoners in Mitiga also included Black and other racialised migrants and refugees from across the African continent and South Asia. For many of them, Mitiga was one stop in a cycle of exploitation and abuse in the migrant detention industry that expanded within the conflict economy in Libya after 2011. The case therefore has the potential to expose broader patterns of criminality, including connections between detention and interceptions at sea, and between perpetrators in Libya and actors beyond, including European actors involved in externalising borders and migration management, who have enabled, sustained, and profited from this system.”
For Refugees in Libya, this moment belongs to the victims, “both the survivors and those who did not survive. For years, we were made to believe that our suffering would never reach a courtroom. Many of us were intercepted at sea, returned to Libya, detained without charge, tortured, enslaved, raped, or forcibly conscripted by militias operating within a system long known to the international community. Seeing the El Hishri case before the ICC restores a measure of belief that the suffering imposed on migrants and refugees in Libya will no longer remain beyond accountability.”
Stressing that the charges of this case are particularly notable as they seek to grapple with “how violence in detention was shaped by intersecting forms of discrimination and control,” ECCHR's Allison West underscores that this hearing “is especially important for victims in Mitiga whose abuse was shaped by overlapping factors, whether actual or perceived, including nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, age, migrant or refugee status, sexual orientation or gender identity, and political, religious, or ideological non-conformity.” For victims and affected communities, this broader recognition can play an important role in acknowledging not only the crimes themselves, but also the specific circumstances and identities that shaped how abuses were experienced.
For many victims and affected communities, “at a minimum, it signals that their years of seeking truth and accountability have not been in vain,” underscores Ali Omar from Libya Crimes Watch. “For many victims and affected communities, not only in Mitiga but across Libya, this development affirms that their testimonies, documentation efforts, and continued advocacy are beginning to translate into concrete steps toward justice.”
Accountability, deterrence and the long shadow of impunity in Libya
“For communities across Libya, accountability today is defined by the sustained failure of domestic justice systems and the absence of meaningful transitional justice,” stresses Libya Crimes Watch's Ali Omar.
Beyond the immediate proceedings against Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri, civil society organisations stress that the case may carry broader implications for accountability efforts across Libya. In a context where impunity for grave crimes has persisted for years, the fact that a suspect has been arrested, transferred to The Hague and brought before the ICC has already begun to shape perceptions among victims, authorities and armed actors alike.
“The case has also exposed visible concerns among Libyan authorities regarding the possibility of international prosecution,” explains Ali Omar from Libya Crimes Watch. “While some authorities have attempted to conceal violations or present limited measures against a small number of perpetrators, this in itself reflects part of the deterrent effect created by the El Hishri case and the growing prospect of accountability.”
At the same time, organisations working closely with victims caution that accountability in Libya remains deeply fragile after years of failed transition processes, stalled justice initiatives and continued violence. However, as Lawyers for Justice in Libya put it: “With accountability and justice for these types of crimes being elusive in Libya, it would be easy to say that victims and the broader Libyan public have given up and accepted impunity as the status quo. And while this might be true for some in the country, it is not the case for victims, for activists, for civil society generally who continue to advocate for accountability, who intervene domestically and internationally on the need for accountability and justice for a transition process in Libya to even start.”
Similarly, Ali Omar of Libya Crimes Watch notes that “the Libyan judiciary has consistently demonstrated that it is neither willing nor able to hold perpetrators accountable. Political interference, institutional fragmentation and lack of independence have rendered it ineffective in addressing serious crimes. At the same time, transitional justice efforts have been repeatedly stalled or reduced to formal initiatives without tangible impact.”
According to LFJL, repeated attempts at transition have failed in part because “accountability and justice were negotiated away at the expense of expediency,” while many of the actors benefiting from the status quo are the ones who have an interest in avoiding accountability, consequently preventing transition.
As a result, victims and affected communities have been “left without credible national avenues for justice. In this context, international justice, particularly through the International Criminal Court, has become the only viable path toward accountability,” emphasises Libya Crimes Watch. “This reliance is not driven by confidence in the system, but by the absence of alternatives. Victims are fully aware of the limitations of international justice. They understand that it will not reach all perpetrators or provide full redress for all harms suffered. However, even limited accountability carries real significance. It affirms that grave crimes cannot be entirely shielded from scrutiny and that impunity is not absolute.”
Lawyers for Justice in Libya emphasise that across all debates about transition in Libya, civil society, victims and affected communities, insofar as they can speak out within a heavily restricted civic space, continue to stress that accountability and justice are indispensable to breaking Libya’s cycle of permanent stagnation and impunity. In the words of Libya Crimes Watch's Ali Omar, one thing is clear: “What remains is a cautious and conditional hope that international processes can deliver at least partial accountability and begin to challenge the entrenched culture of impunity.”
The role of state cooperation in the pursuit of accountability
“Accountability in Libya cannot remain a distant promise for victims and survivors. The confirmation of charges hearing in the El Hishri case marks an important step forward, but it was only possible because a State Party fulfilled its Rome Statute obligation to cooperate with the Court. Without prompt and effective cooperation, investigations stall, courtrooms remain empty, the fight against impunity persists, and ultimately, victims are the ones who lose out. Nearly fifteen years after the UN Security Council referred the situation in Libya to the ICC, victims and survivors still deserve meaningful justice, and we owe it to them to continue this pursuit," underscores Nour Nassif, The Hague Representative of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC).
The El Hishri case also illustrates a broader reality at the heart of the ICC system: without state cooperation, international justice cannot function. ICC States Parties serve as the Court’s enforcement pillar: the Court relies on States Parties to execute arrest warrants, transfer suspects, protect witnesses and facilitate investigations. In this case, proceedings only reached this stage because Germany arrested and surrendered Mr El Hishri pursuant to an ICC warrant
Such cooperation is not only necessary for the ICC to function, but it is also a legal obligation of State parties to support and facilitate the work of the Court throughout its judicial proceedings.2 This reliance on state cooperation has always been the Court’s greatest strength and its greatest vulnerability. It makes the ICC a truly international system of justice, dependent on cooperation rather than coercion. Yet it also means that when states refuse to act, justice stalls.
In the words of Alice Autin, international justice researcher at Human Rights Watch: “As atrocities persist across Libya, progress in this case should spur action from Libyan authorities and the international community to end the pervasive impunity that continues to fuel violence. The El Hishri confirmation of charges hearing highlights how important it is for countries to cooperate with the ICC. Further progress on justice for serious crimes in Libya hinges on Libyan authorities fulfilling their legal duty to surrender suspects sought by the ICC.”
The credibility of the Court, and the future of justice in Libya and beyond, depends on cooperation from States. States can either prove that international justice has real teeth or allow impunity to prevail. For the victims still waiting, the difference is not symbolic. It is the difference between abandonment and hope.
Justice beyond a single case
In Libya Crimes Watch's view, the confirmation of charges hearing against Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri is widely viewed as a significant step forward, offering victims and survivors “a sense of recognition and validation that their suffering is acknowledged within an international legal process.” This has the potential to reinforce for victims and survivors “that silence, denial, and inaction they endured did not erase what happened”. Nevertheless, victims, survivors, affected communities, and civil society organisations stress that accountability efforts in Libya cannot end with a single prosecution. According to civil society, the credibility of international justice efforts will ultimately depend on whether accountability extends beyond lower- and mid-level perpetrators to those “at higher levels of responsibility, particularly those who ordered, enabled, or oversaw the commission of these crimes,” explains LCW.
Organisations working with migrants and refugees affected by detention-related crimes in Libya expressed a strong expectation that accountability should address broader systems of abuse. Refugees in Libya stressed that accountability efforts should not stop “at individual perpetrators while ignoring the wider EU system that made these crimes possible.”
From proceedings to accountability: what comes next
Following the conclusion of the confirmation of charges hearing, the PTC I judges will issue a written decision within 60 days. They may confirm the charges and commit the case to trial, decline to confirm the charges, or request additional evidence from the Prosecution before deciding whether the case should proceed further.
If the charges are confirmed, the case against Mr El Hishri will move to trial before a newly constituted Trial Chamber, marking the first time a Libya case reaches this stage before the ICC. If the charges are not confirmed, proceedings against Mr El Hishri would stop unless the Prosecution later presents additional evidence.
Libya Crimes Watch's Director Ali Omar stresses that “the significance of this hearing will ultimately depend on what follows. If it leads to concrete progress, including further investigations and additional cases, it can begin to restore confidence in international justice. However, despite this important development, accountability efforts must not stop at El Hishri. Grave crimes and serious violations continue to be committed across Libya, and meaningful accountability requires a broader and sustained process that addresses those most responsible.”
At the heart of these expectations lies a deeper question of trust. For many victims and affected communities, engagement with the ICC has been shaped by years of disappointment, delay and limited progress. Lawyers for Justice in Libya (LFJL) observes that the past 15 years “have not served to develop trust in the ICC,” noting that many victims continue to engage with international justice processes because those processes remain “their only hope.” According to LFJL, rebuilding confidence will require far more than judicial proceedings alone, including meaningful outreach, sustained engagement with affected communities, transparency and demonstrating that accountability efforts are connected to the realities and needs of victims in Libya itself, rather than remaining distant processes centred solely in The Hague.
Victims and survivors also continue to stress the importance of ensuring that accountability efforts do not leave behind those whose experiences have historically remained marginalised within justice processes. Refugees in Libya stresses that “what we will watch closely is whether migrants and refugees are fully recognised in this process, not as secondary figures within Libya’s conflict, but as victims of grave crimes.” Refugees in Libya further notes that “many people who passed through Mitiga and other detention sites were intercepted at sea, on land and transferred into systems of violence that remain insufficiently acknowledged within international justice processes.”
Libya Crimes Watch similarly describes proceedings such as the El Hishri case as “a double-edged process” for victims’ trust in international justice. While the arrest and transfer of Mr El Hishri strengthened confidence that accountability is possible, the organisation warned “delays in proceedings, the narrow scope of investigations, and the continued failure to execute other outstanding arrest warrants risk undermining that confidence. When accountability appears selective or limited, it can reinforce perceptions that justice is incomplete or uneven.” “For many victims,” LCW stresses, “the key issue is not only whether proceedings take place, but whether they lead to a broader and sustained accountability process.”
The confirmation of charges hearing against Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri therefore represents more than a procedural milestone in a single case. For many victims, survivors and civil society organisations, it has become a test of whether accountability in Libya can move beyond symbolic commitments and begin to challenge entrenched impunity in a meaningful and sustained way.
Picture: © ICC-CPI - Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri appeared before Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC. 3 December 2025
