International Treaty Bodies and Tribunals

United Nations Treaty Monitoring Bodies

Treaty monitoring bodies (TMBs) are committees of independent experts, created by specific UN human rights treaties to oversee how States that ratify those treaties carry out their obligations. They review countries’ periodic reports, issue “concluding observations,” interpret treaty rights through “general comments and recommendations,” decide individual cases, inter-State complaints, and conduct confidential inquiries into grave or systematic violations. TMBs are not courts, however their findings (often called “views”) are authoritative, and guide States’ compliance. Examples include the CEDAW Committee, Human Rights Committee (ICCPR), and the CAT Committee below. The OHCHR provides their secretariats. In addition, TMB’s are distinct from “charter-based” bodies, such as the Human Rights Council. The links below provide curated summaries of relevant case law that demonstrate how complaints are admitted, dismissed, or upheld by the TMBs. 

International Criminal Tribunals and Hybrid Criminal Courts

International criminal tribunals and hybrid criminal courts are special bodies that prosecute people, not countries, for the gravest crimes under international law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. They step in when national authorities are unable or unwilling to act, and aim to ensure that atrocities are investigated, tried, and punished in a way that respects fair-trial standards. An international criminal court or tribunal is created by states acting together, or by the United Nations. International judges and prosecutors staff the international criminal courts or tribunals, applying international criminal law. The best-known example is the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC), which operates on the principle of complementarity (meaning it takes a case only when a state cannot or will not genuinely prosecute). Hybrid (or “mixed”) courts blend international and national elements. A hybrid court is usually located in the country affected, combines international and local judges and staff, and applies international and domestic law. The purpose of the hybrid model is to bring justice closer to victims, strengthen local courts, and add independence and expertise where national systems need support. Hybrid courts rely on states to arrest suspects and provide evidence, which can slow cases. However, the hybrid court model fights impunity, documents the truth, and leaves a lasting rule-of-law legacy. The links below are some examples of these criminal courts and tribunals.