Twelve years ago, world leaders gathered in Rome to establish the International Criminal Court. Few could have believed, then, that this court would spring so vigorously into life, fully operational, investigating and trying war crimes and crimes against humanity across a broadening geography of countries.

Seldom since the founding of the United Nations itself has such a resounding blow been struck for peace, justice and human rights. The old era of impunity is over. In its place, slowly but surely, we are witnessing the birth of a new Age of Accountability. It began, many decades ago, with Nuremberg and the Tokyo Tribunals.

It gained strength with the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia as well as the so-called “hybrid” tribunals in Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Lebanon. Now we have the ICC, permanent, increasingly powerful, casting a long shadow. There is no going back.

In this new age of accountability, those who commit the worst of human crimes will be held responsible. Whether they are rank-and-file foot soldiers or military commanders, whether they are lowly civil servants following orders, or top political leaders, they will be held accountable.

Hear the roster of names for those who have already been called to justice: General Ante Gotovina; Jean-Paul Akayesu, a city mayor; Chea Nuaon and Radovan Karadzic, prominent political leaders; Jean Kambanda, a Prime Minister; Slobodan Milosevic and Charles Taylor, heads of state.

Not long ago, this would have been unimaginable. Today, it is the way of the future.

If the ICC is to have the reach it should possess, if it is to become an effective deterrent as well as an avenue of justice, it must have universal support. Only then will perpetrators have no place to hide. This court breaks new ground on the rights of victims, including the right of compensation. Rightly, it holds that justice is not only retributive, but restorative as well. The ICC remains a court of last resort. It exercises jurisdiction only where national courts do not (or cannot) act themselves. This is important: where a State is unwilling to genuinely investigate and prosecute perpetrators, the Court can get involved. No government or justice system that is complicit in international crimes can any longer shield the perpetrators from justice.

In today's conflicts, civilians have become the chief victims. Women, children and the elderly are deliberately targeted. Armies or militias rape, maim, kill and devastate towns, villages, crops, cattle and water sources, all as a strategy of war. The more shocking the crime, the more effective it is as a weapon. Any victim would understandably yearn to stop such horrors, even at the cost of granting immunity to those who have wronged them.

But this is a false peace. This is a truce at gunpoint, without dignity, justice or hope for a better future. Yes, it may be true: demanding criminal accountability, at the wrong time, can discourage warring parties from sitting down at the negotiating table. Yes, it may even perpetuate bloodshed.

Even so, one thing is clear: the time has passed when we might speak of peace versus justice, or think of them as somehow opposed to each other. Between war and peace must first come something else: reconciliation, forgiveness, a mending of the social fabric. These are the hand-maidens of peace and justice. We have no choice but to pursue them both, hand in hand.

In recent years, international criminal justice has emerged as a powerful voice against the epidemic of violence against women. In 1998, for the first time in international criminal law, the Rwanda Tribunal gave us a definition of rape as a crime against humanity. The Special Court for Sierra Leone convicted three members of the Revolutionary United Front for sexual enslavement. Right now, at the ICC, alleged perpetrators of rape and sexual slavery in the Democratic Republic of the Congo face war crimes charges.

We have all heard at least one criticism of this court: that it is “selective,” that African nations are too frequently the focus of its work, that grave crimes elsewhere escape such scrutiny. As I see it, however, these criticism are both unfair and inaccurate. As a matter of factual accuracy, yes. All of the on-going cases before the court relate to Africa. That said, most of these situations were referred to the Prosecutor by the governments concerned. Correctly, they see the court as a help to them, not a threat. In the case of Darfur, I might add, the referral was a decision of the Security Council.

Only with regard to the situation in Kenya did the Prosecutor take the initiative to request an authorization from the Court to formally investigate. The merits of each case warrant no less. The Court is meant to follow the evidence. There is a broader point, as well: in all these cases, African society is cheering. To them, the court is where we all should be, firmly on the side of the victims.

The Rome Statute represents the best that is in us, our most noble instinct, the instinct for peace and justice.

In 1998, we made Rome a by-word for international criminal justice. Let us now write Kampala in that illustrious history, as well. Let it be known as the place where the international community, coming together in concert, closed the door on the era of impunity and  acting in concert, ushered in the new Age of Accountability.

By Ban Ki-moon,UN Secretary General.

Excerpts from address to the Review Conference on the International Criminal Court, Kampala.