Abstract: Justice systems often emerge from periods of mass atrocity structurally weakened, tainted by complicity, or otherwise compromised Since the close of the Cold War, when criminal accountability for atrocities became a political priority, the international community has created and deployed a variety of legal institutions to take jurisdiction when state justice systems falter The ad hoc criminal tribunals, the hybrid tribunals, the International Criminal Court, and the use of extraterritorial jurisdiction by national courts are among a new generation of transnational mechanisms designed to hold wrongdoers individually accountable, state justice systems notwithstanding (1) My paper argues that there is an alternative mechanism of accountability that also takes shape through the intervention of an international court, but that has been overlooked by the scholarship The regional human rights systems have begun to order and supervise national prosecutions when states have been unable or unwilling to act In particular, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has made national prosecution of gross state-sponsored crimes a centerpiece of its regional agenda The Inter-American Court is not, technically speaking, a criminal court and cannot find individual responsibility Nonetheless, it has forged the practice of regularly ordering states to investigate, try, and punish those responsible for gross human rights violations as a form of equitable relief It then supervises states' implementation of its orders, holding mandatory hearings and issuing compliance reports that aspire to shape the progress of national criminal processes as they unfold The Court has decreed and is actively monitoring prosecutions of international crimes in roughly 50 cases across 17 states (2) Pursuant to its orders in these cases, states have launched new criminal investigations, exhumed mass graves, moved cases from military to civil jurisdiction, overturned amnesties, bypassed statutes of limitations, and created new institutions and working methods to facilitate prosecution of such crimes Indeed, at least 32 prosecutions launched pursuant to Inter-American Court orders have yielded convictions To contextualize this number, it should be recalled that the International Criminal Court (ICC) ten years into its work has issued a single conviction, and that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has reached 64 convictions (3) The Inter-American Court runs on a yearly budget of roughly US$25 million; the ICC and ICTY each run on yearly budgets of roughly US$150 million (4) The Inter-American Court is not alone in its foray into prosecutorial matters The Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, and the African Human Rights Commission also exhort states both to prosecute international crimes and to monitor the ensuing national processes In pushing for accountability, these human rights bodies exert a jurisdiction quite different from that of the international and hybrid criminal courts Whereas those courts directly conduct the prosecutorial work themselves, the rights bodies entrust local justice systems with the corrective actions, monitoring their work from afar but at times in detail, and exerting pressure by publishing compliance reports and holding hearings The rights bodies' methods are thus more deferential to states and, inevitably, slow to reach prosecutorial outcomes But they have important virtues They foster local processes of justice, memory, and judicial reform They are able to pair victim-centered remedies with retributive justice And, importantly, it is the state rather than the international community that shoulders the cost of prosecution---costs which, in any case, run substantially lower than those of the international criminal tribunals This form of jurisdiction--the practice by an international body of ordering, monitoring, and guiding national prosecutions--will be referred to as quasi-criminal review …