The rapid development of international criminal law since the 1990s has been
driven by lofty goals such as ending impunity and restoring the rule of law. Given
their mandates to prosecute individuals allegedly responsible for the most egregious
of human rights violations, International Criminal Tribunals (ICTs) are primarily
considered as instruments of human rights protection. However, at the same
time, the ICTs must be recognized as potential violators of human rights. They
conduct criminal investigations, provisionally detain individuals, and put them on
trial. All of these activities inherently impact on individuals’ human rights, including
the right to privacy, the right to liberty, and the right to a fair trial, to name but
a few. The ICTs’ exercise of public power vis-à-vis individuals necessarily entails
the potential of violating their human rights.
However, while states have widely ratified human rights treaties and are often
subject to the supervision of human rights courts and quasi-judicial bodies, the
same does not apply to ICTs. They are not parties to human rights treaties, nor is
their observance of human rights norms subject to any form of external review. It
is therefore questionable whether they are bound by international human rights
law (IHRL) to begin with.