It has been said that it is harder to get away with killing 1 man then it is to get away with killing 100,000 men. This was no more true than in the 20th Century when millions died at the hands of fanatics who were never brought to justice. However, in the past week, courts in Canada and Germany have taken steps to reverse this trend and bring war criminals to justice.

In Canada, the two-year trial of Desire Munyaneza, a former Rwandan shop owner, ended last week, with Mr. Munyaneza being convicted of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Mr. Munyaneza, who came to Canada over a decade ago seeking refugee status, is the first person ever to be charged under Canada’s War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Act.

In Germany, the trial 89-year-old John Demjanjuk, an alleged former Nazi camp guard, is set to get underway. Mr. Demjanjuk, who spent the latter part of his life as a car worker in Cleveland, is facing charges that he helped murder at least 29,000 Jews at the Sobibor death camp in Poland in 1943.

There are a number of schools of thought on the efficacy and importance of holding trials such as these. Proponents of holding war crimes trials argue that they are important tools of deterrence and catharsis: they end the cycle of violence and provide comfort to the families of victims. Opponents, unsurprisingly, argue just the opposite. Instead they suggest that trials do nothing to deter future war criminals, and that they open up new wounds at a time when a country needs to forgive and forget.

While settling the debate is difficult without extensive qualitative or quantitative research, Rwanda and Germany have sided with the school of thought that supports war crimes trials. In Rwanda, dozens of “genocidaires” have been convicted at the UN special tribunal, and thousands have been convicted at the local gacaca courts. Likewise, Germany has investigated tens of thousands of people for war crimes, and, according to The Economist, 6,500 people have been convicted for Nazi crimes in western Germany alone.

The Rwandan and German approach contrasts sharply with the approach taken by Cambodia. In what is perhaps the best example of impunity, Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge, died without having to face trial for the nearly 2 million Cambodians who died during his rule. Where Rwanda and Germany have acknowledged their pasts, Cambodia continues to deny its own.

In the context of the 20th Century, the trials of two former war criminals may not amount to much. This was after all a century so violent that a new word- genocide- had to be invented to describe the pinnacle of all crimes. However, by taking a stand against the crimes of the past, Germany and Canada (with the support of the Rwandan government) have committed themselves to upholding international law. This was a good week for justice and a bad week for impunity.