III. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE A. Which form should an international intervention take? 1. Relevant factors In certain situations, it will be impossible to rely purely on domestic authorities to take domestic prosecutions forward. In fact, throughout history, domestic trials of system crimes have been very rare, not least because State authorities themselves are often implicated in these crimes. The following are possible “models” or forms which such assistance has taken in the past: • International tribunals. The conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda led to the establishments of two ad hoc Tribunals through resolutions of the Security Council.83 Both have been functioning for about a decade, one in The Hague (Netherlands) and the other in Arusha (United Republic of Tanzania). Both have grown to large institutions and have indicted close to 100 persons. By the end of 2004, ICTY had tried about 50 individuals, whereas ICTR had tried about 23. Although their achievements are undeniable, the Tribunals have been criticized in some quarters for excessive bureaucracy and inefficiency, and for the length of trials. • Extraterritorial or universal jurisdiction. Prosecutions can also take place within a third jurisdiction, under the principle of “universal jurisdiction.” Certain States, such as Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, now require a nexus between their jurisdiction and the crime committed. Trials pursuant to universal jurisdiction suffer the same weaknesses as purely international trials, e.g., a lack of connectedness with victim populations, and hence have a limited impact on restoring trust in the rule of law. They are also more susceptible to politicization. But in certain situations, these may provide the only opportunity to take accountability forward, and may serve to catalyse domestic developments (as was the case 83 See Security Council resolutions 808 (1993) and 955 (1994), respectively. 29