Chapter 8 explores the legal and political dilemmas arising from the assessment of individual criminal responsibility in two ICC cases, which ended in acquittals: Bemba and Gbagbo and Blé Goudé. The analysis focuses on the battles of ideas inside the legal field, situating those dynamics within the broader international political context of the Bemba and Gbagbo and Blé Goudé trials. This chapter offers an illustration of the distinctive and predominant line of legal reasoning at the ICC, a line of legal reasoning that prioritizes the quality of the process through the narrow application of the modes of liability and the meticulous assessment of evidence, all regardless of the trial outcome. The chapter concludes that the Bemba Appeals Chamber Majority and Gbagbo and Blé Goudé Trial Chamber Majority have adopted an internal shared understanding about the role of the court in the international society, according to which procedural excellence upholds the integrity of the liberal system of criminal justice and provides an antidote to the false information dominating the modern political world. Nevertheless, the restrained approach to the assessment of criminal responsibility has been contested by dissenting judges, non-governmental organizations, and legal experts.