An international consensus on the need to prosecute and punish mass atrocities is arguably the strongest evidence of the existence of the global collective consciousness. The Nuremberg Tribunal challenged traditional world order centering on states and their intentions and overlooking abuses sanctioned by the state or flowing from state policy. This tribunal was the first international court tasked with trying individuals responsible for crimes committed on a large scale by the oppressive regime. Despite some dissenting voices, the Nuremberg trial was neither a show trial, nor was it a purely domestic criminal law process. It was rather a way of expressing international outrage with Germany’s aggression through judicial means. Ever since this historic shift occurred, the field of international criminal law has been increasingly vested with the mounting number of objectives – deterrence, retribution, transitional justice, reconciliation, and, finally, setting the historical record. Some of these goals are conflicting. The chapter critically assesses the latter objective and situates it among other considerations. The crime of genocide, first prosecuted internationally by the ad hoc tribunals in the 1990’s, exemplifies the main argument in this chapter: providing historical account of events is an essential and inalienable part of international criminal law, but it is limited in scope and subject to strict legal requirements.