On a global scale, transnational actors have the capacity to enforce international human rights laws. This capability is currently present in the global system through the intergovernmental organization known as the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC examines cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity from around the world. This court is different from the World Court, as it has the ability to indict individuals from any state and is not exclusively between states. In creating the International Criminal Court, the intentions were to put an end to crimes against humanity by punishing those responsible and subsequently hoping to deter potential violators. Trials at the ICC can be initiated in three ways: a state can hand over an individual, an ICC special prosecutor can initiate a trial if the crimes occurred in a territory that has signed agreements with the ICC and if an individual is committing crimes in a territory that is not a signatory to the ICC, the United Nations Security Council can initiate proceedings against individuals. (Goldstein & Pevenhouse, 2012) To understand the procedures and effectiveness of the ICC, specific cases can be examined. Two major ICC cases emerged during the 200 elections held in Kenya. As is common in most democracies, major conflicts arise between political parties with different beliefs. This conflict is most evident during election periods. Unfortunately, this conflict turned violent following Kenya's 2007 presidential elections. During these elections, the Electoral Commission of Kenya manipulated the results. Not surprisingly, when the incident became known, Kenyans from both major political parties were furious. Instead of directing their anger at the Electoral Commission of Kenya, both political parties targeted each other. Great violence broke out between the Orange Democratic Movement and the National Unity Party (Odinga,