als are usually oriented towards establishing the innocence or guilt of individual acts and are not capable of dealing with crimes committed on a larger scale such as widespread and systematic human rights violation. These trials cannot offer an account of economic, social, political, or historic circumstances that resulted in the crime or the engagement of external and internal political actors in promoting hatred and violence (Bercovitch and Jackson 2009, p158).
The criminal justice system serves a vital function in efforts to control past injustices and change potential violent conflicts into settlements that are peaceful. The international community supported by the international law are of the opinion that genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and gross violation of human rights ought to be investigated and punished. However, “it may sometimes be impossible to pursue criminal prosecutions in the immediate aftermath of civil strife, or they may, if procedural standards cannot be maintained, provoke renewed violence or lead to new injustices” (Theissen 2004, p2). In other words, immediately after civil violence has occurred, the criminal justice systems have been unable to pursue criminal prosecutions due to the lack of proper procedural standards or the possibility of renewing violence or bringing up of new injustices.
It is worth to note that the effect of criminal prosecution on revealing the truth, enlightening the public of past injustices and accomplishing conflict transformation tends to be limited (Theissen 2004, p2). Since most of the national criminal justice, systems have been unable or they are unwilling to bring crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide to trial, the UN Security Council has previously instituted the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. There has been considerable progress in making permanent the International Criminal Court (ICC) to hear majority of these atrocious crimes