Drawing from the Pinochet and Congo v. Belgium judgments, this paper addresses issues arising from the question of which courts (national or international?) are best suited to exercise jurisdiction over individuals accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. It begins by looking at the approach taken in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. It moves on to discuss established views on the matter in general international law and the opposing visions of this relationship depicted in the Pinochet and Congo v. Belgium cases. It closes by addressing the consequences of the prevalence of one or the other view for the future of international law and the prosecution of international crimes.

This article discusses certain key aspects arising from the negotiations leading up to the adoption of a Statute for an International Criminal Court (ICC), to have its seat in The Hague. These aspects include individual criminal responsibility regardless of status as Head of State or constitutional organ and the transformation of international criminal law into domestic law. Also discussed are the two appendices to be added to the Statute pertaining to substantive criminal law and rules of criminal evidence and procedure to be used by the Court. The author argues that the appendix on the law of criminal procedure will be of particular importance to the Netherlands as the host state. The obligations regarding legal assistance of the host state will be dependent on this.