INTRODUCTION It is the most common perception of people to prosecute and punish those who commit war crimes or atrocities against humanity, nonetheless they should be given a fair trial. A fair trial, free from judicial bias and political pressures is a legal right. The fairness is not only the prerogative of the victims but also the accused for it is an important component of the mandate to the International Court of Justice. To interpret fairness one requires a more holistic concept not just limiting to judicial proceeding but one that effectively helps parties realise their rights under the Rome Statute. The concept of fairness in international criminal law is derived from its predecessor, international human rights law. The genesis of both can be traced to the atrocities during the two world wars. At the end of the World War II International Tribunals were instituted to adhere to the liberal principles on fair trial to deal with the Nazi leadership. But a fair trial was the most unpopular amongst the people. A Gallup poll in 1942 found that only 1% of Americans favoured the trial for Adolf Hitler, and a full 39% supporting the execution (with a 3% supporting a slow torture). Again in 1944 a poll was constituted wherein 88% Americans were in support of punishing the Japanese military leadership and only 4% believe in a fair trial. Even though these anecdotes have paved way for fair and just trials, still some pertinent questions are raised as to why should such offenders