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.