This paper analyzes the International Criminal Court’s principles, sentencing guidelines, and its ability to offer victim redress in the context of the Thomas Dyilo Lubanga and Germain Katanga cases. The first chapter develops international criminal law principles enshrined in the Rome Statute, explains why they are important, and assess whether or not the Court respected these principles during Lubanga and Katanga. The second chapter focuses on the Court’s sentencing regime. This aspect is studied to determine the Court’s ability to satisfy penal theories, while also answering the question concerning the purpose of punishment and sentencing and what this meant to the Court in Lubanga and Katanga. The concluding chapter discusses how the Court serves the interest of victims, applying a critical feminist jurisprudential critique in order to introduce recommendations that can help find a clear nexus between the Court and transitional justice for individuals and communities harmed by armed conflict in the DRC.