10 33. The current historical process of the criminalization of grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law, to which I have already referred, came to revitalize the principle of the universal jurisdiction that already has a long record in the sphere of international law and which is to be found in the confluence between international human rights law (the collective guarantee) and international criminal law. Indeed, there are extremely important aspects that have been entirely disregarded by legal doctrine to date and that I have indicated in my opinions in those cases, which, I believe, merit special attention today, and which can promote the approximation or convergence to which I refer. I will refer to them briefly below. V. Elements for an approximation to the complementarity between international human rights law and international criminal law 34. There are elements that lead to an approximation to the complementarity between international human rights law and international criminal law that have been insufficiently dealt with by legal doctrine to date. In this regard, I wish to identify five elements that I will examine below: (a) the international legal status of the individual; (b) the complementarity between the international responsibility of the State and that of the individual; (c) the conceptualization of crimes against humanity; (d) prevention and guarantee of non-repetition; and (e) reparatory justice in the confluence of international human rights law and international criminal law. 1. The international legal status of the individual 35. The first element for an approximation in the complementarity between international human rights law and international criminal law is, in my opinion, the individual in his legal capacity as both an active (international human rights law) and a passive (international criminal law) subject of international law; that is, as the possessor of rights and bearer of obligations that arise directly from international law. The condition of the individual as such represents, as I have indicated in numerous writings, the most precious legacy of juridical science as of the middle of the twentieth century.28 36. Indeed, the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) represents an advance in relation to the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, as regards, in particular, the presence and participation of the victims during the proceedings (Rome Statute, Articles 68 and 75, and Rules of Procedure, rules 16, 89 and 90-93).29 A Victims and Witnesses Unit has been established within the ICC Registry (Statute, Article 43(6), and Rules of Procedure, rules 16-19).30 In addition, the creation of a Trust Fund for the benefit of victims was 28 . Cf., inter alia, A.A. Cançado Trindade, “International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium - General Course on Public International Law”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de la Haye (2005) caps. IX-X (to be published); A.A. Cançado Trindade, El Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos en el Siglo XXI, 1st ed., Santiago, Editorial Jurídica de Chile, 2001, pp. 317-374 (2nd ed., 2006); A.A. Cançado Trindade, El Acceso Directo del Individuo a los Tribunales Internacionales de Derechos Humanos, Bilbao, Universidad de Deusto, 2001, pp. 9-104; A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, tome III, Porto Alegre/Brazil, S.A. Fabris Ed., 2003, pp. 447-497. 29 . ICC, Selected Basic Documents Related to the International Criminal Court, The Hague, ICC Secretariat, 2005, pp. 47, 52, 122 and 151-153. 30 . Ibid., pp. 32 and 122-124.