Her credit cards stopped working. A bank transfer to newlyweds in the U.K. has been stuck in limbo for months. She can’t travel to the U.S. — she was even disinvited from virtually attending a recent international law conference in New York.
And in a dystopian turn that sounds pulled from a Ray Bradbury novel, her smart speaker no longer responds after Amazon cut off access: “Suddenly, Alexa wouldn’t talk to me.”
Last August, Kimberly Prost became one of several judges and prosecutors at the International Criminal Court (ICC) targeted by Donald Trump’s administration with sanctions as a result of their work trying to hold perpetrators of alleged war crimes and other atrocities accountable.
“It really turns your life upside down,” Prost, a Winnipeg-born trial judge at the ICC, told the Star during a recent video call from her office at The Hague. “Every day, literally, it’s something different that you’re suddenly facing.”
In other words, her life has been upended in much the same way as the alleged terrorists whose appeals Prost heard when she was ombudsman of a UN sanctions committee involving members of al-Qaeda.
Prost was sanctioned because she had previously authorized an ICC probe into alleged crimes in Afghanistan, including incidents that may have involved U.S. personnel. Others were sanctioned for work related to Israel, including the ICC’s arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
So far, 11 judges and prosecutors have been targeted for what the U.S. described as threats to the sovereignty and national security of the U.S. and Israel. (Prost and the court’s many defenders reject such a notion.)
Although the sanctions are an ongoing nuisance, Prost wants to be clear: they’re not working.
“These measures are completely futile because they certainly do not impact the way we do our jobs,” she said. “We continue with our work, we carry on, and we solely focus on objective and independent analysis of the evidence before us to reach our decisions.”
That’s heartening to the court’s advocates. However, some, including a former Canadian foreign minister, would like to see the federal government speak more forcefully in the face of U.S. attacks on international law and specifically the ICC, a court Canada played a key role in creating nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Unlike other governments whose citizens were targeted by U.S. sanctions, Canada has tried to avoid publicly denouncing them. The government has also not invoked a law that experts say could help ease the sanctions.
Established in 2002, the ICC investigates and prosecutes allegations against individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression when national governments appear unable or unwilling to seek justice themselves.
More than 120 countries are member states of the court, including Canada, which means the ICC can investigate alleged crimes that occurred on their territory or involve accused citizens of member states. And though countries such as the U.S., Israel, Russia and China have not signed on, their citizens may still be pursued if accused of crimes committed on the territory of member states.
A day after the U.S. State Department announced sanctions against Prost last summer, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand said she voiced her concerns in a meeting with U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio.
Shortly after, Anand announced that she had spoken to Prost, saying she had the “utmost confidence” in the ICC and its “vital work.”
“Canada continues to support the court and calls on all states to respect the court’s independence, impartiality and integrity,” Clémence Grevey, a Global Affairs Canada (GAC) spokesperson, told the Star this week.
Bob Rae put it differently while still serving as Canada’s UN ambassador last summer.
“The U.S. attack on the International Criminal Court and its judges is disgraceful,” Rae tweeted the day Prost was sanctioned. “Judge Kim Prost are [sic] carrying out their public duties. Attacks on them by Russia, Israel and the U.S. are intended to weaken and intimidate the international legal system.”
Rae, who left his ambassadorial post in November, quickly deleted the tweet. Government communications obtained by the Star, and first reported by online publication The Maple, suggest he was instructed to. “Getting my wings clipped,” Rae messaged a colleague that day.
When reached by phone, Rae refused to explain why he deleted the tweet — “You can reach any conclusions you want” — but said he stands by its sentiment. “Putting sanctions on judges and prosecutors who are just doing their job is disgraceful.”
For her part, Prost feels supported by the Canadian government, which she acknowledged is “dealing with a lot.” She added that diplomatic staff have helped her navigate issues with Canadian banks. (The sanctions are not binding outside of the U.S., but foreign companies and institutions often choose to abide by them out of fear of American repercussions.)
After the sanctions were announced, Prost said she received a flurry of support from regular folks back home. “It’s what I’d expect from Canadians,” she said.
Before she was elected to her post in 2018, the 67-year-old Manitoba native served as a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. She also worked for years in the Department of Justice, including as part of the Canadian delegation that helped negotiate the Rome Statute that resulted in the ICC’s creation.
In 2020, Prost was involved in a unanimous decision to approve a probe into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, a call she remains “very proud of.” Later, the ICC prosecutor leading the investigation de-prioritized incidents involving Americans. Prost isn’t involved in any other cases involving Israel or Afghanistan.
“It’s clearly to punish,” she said about the U.S. sanctions.
“It is a direct attack on the independence of the judges. It is basically saying, you must not decide the cases in accordance with the law and the facts, but in the way we want you to decide.”
Prost said she’s exploring options to challenge the sanctions, which she called legally “questionable.”
When asked why Prost was sanctioned despite the Afghanistan probe no longer focusing on Americans, the U.S. State Department declined to explain.
“The ICC has directly engaged in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States and Israel, neither of which signed the Rome Statute,” said spokesperson Tommy Pigott in an emailed statement.
“This arrogant and brazen disregard for state consent, the single most fundamental norm of ‘international law,’ makes the case for sanctions even more pressing.”
Although American opposition to the ICC — as well as that of other non-member states — is not new, experts say the Trump administration’s attacks are cause for heightened alarm.
“If the ICC is disabled from performing its functions, then international criminal law will be set adrift,” said Adil Haque, a professor at Rutgers University who specializes in international law.
The court is currently “overhauling” tech and financial systems with ties to American firms, according to a recent New York Times report.
Rae believes the Canadian government has made its discontent with the sanctions “very clear.” Alex Neve, former secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, is still waiting to hear more.
“I haven’t seen that clarity,” he said. “And I don’t think that it has proven to be the case that by appeasing or remaining silent as Donald Trump attacks individuals or dismantles institutions that you gain any points.”
Amid attacks on international law “from so many directions,” Neve remains hopeful about the future of pillars like the ICC. Prost, too.
International criminal law as a project “was always going to be very hard,” she told the Star, adding that she “firmly believes” the court will endure.
The work continues through the turmoil, she pointed out, with former Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte set to stand trial shortly and atrocities from around the world continuing to be investigated.
“I’m endlessly optimistic though,” Prost said. Her former boss liked to call her Pollyanna. “So I’m a bit overly optimistic, perhaps. But I think that we have to be these days.”
