Underlying reason for the establishment of ICC is the desire of international community toward law enforcement efforts against perpetrators of serious human rights violations because of their state-privilege protection. The existence of ICC is not considered to undermine the state sovereignty in prosecuting violators of such rights. The establishment of human right court in Indonesia is to dispel the notion that it cannot and are not capable of prosecuting violators of such violations, the same reason behind the establishment of Indonesia Ad Hoc Human Right Court prior to the issuance of Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Court. Eventually, it emerged an issue of under what jurisdiction ICC operates in human rights violation cases is and how the ICC jurisdiction correlated with the jurisdiction of Indonesia Ad Hoc Human Rights. Resolution mechanism to human rights violation cases refers to the national judicial mechanisms-permanent and also ad hoc. However, if a country concerned cannot prosecute the violators using its law, international world will bring them to justice through ICC. The size of inability stipulated in Article 17 (2) and (3) Rome Statute. Principles of non rektroaktif made ICC unable to prosecute a violation of human right that happened before the ICC, which is different from Indonesian Human Right Court. In article 43 there is an Ad Hoc court to prosecute violation of human right before Law 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Court Indonesia. Rome Statute 1998 through UN Security Council could prosecute on not state party