During a long period of time, many states have failed to investigate and prosecute their own officials and agents accused to be the perpetrators of a serious international crimes. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court came into force in July 2002, it was an important moment in international criminal justice and the African region was one of the main actors of the realization of this court. The Court's mandate is to try those responsible for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. With the establishment of a permanent international criminal court the possibility has given to hold perpetrators of serious violations of human rights rather crimes under international law. With the creation of the international criminal court, the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty has been the subject of a very heated debate on whether states officials should be held responsible before an international court for international crimes committed while in office. This debate concerns the contradiction between two branches of international law. The first one is concerning the importance of immunity in international relations; it comes from notions of sovereign equality between states, and it is one of the main principles of the international law. On the second hand, we have those newer principles that focused on humanitarian values and consider certain kind of conduct as crimes under international law. There is a real conflict between the different legal rules, which does not facilitate to understand the legal position, and this leads some authors to assert that the court while dealing with the issues of immunities ignores the fundamental rules of international law. Surprisingly all those accused by the ICC came from Africa, this fact has created a lot of speculation and particularly the court endeavors to prosecute African heads of states has created a real tension between the ICC and the African Union (AU) The result of this paper shows that the ICC has dealt the issue of immunity in a manner that has strained its relationship with African states, and African Union. The argument provided by the court concerning immunity of heads of state who are not signatories of the Rome Statute was not convincing and as a result, the court has lost its authority in Africa. This fact continues to threaten states to ratify the Rome statute and it gives an opportunity to some member states to withdraw from the organization.During a long period of time, many states have failed to investigate and prosecute their own officials and agents accused to be the perpetrators of a serious international crimes. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court came into force in July 2002, it was an important moment in international criminal justice and the African region was one of the main actors of the realization of this court. The Court's mandate is to try those responsible for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. With the establishment of a permanent international criminal court the possibility has given to hold perpetrators of serious violations of human rights rather crimes under international law. With the creation of the international criminal court, the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty has been the subject of a very heated debate on whether states officials should be held responsible before an international court for international crimes committed while in office. This debate concerns the contradiction between two branches of international law. The first one is concerning the importance of immunity in international relations; it comes from notions of sovereign equality between states, and it is one of the main principles of the international law. On the second hand, we have those newer principles that focused on humanitarian values and consider certain kind of conduct as crimes under international law. There is a real conflict between the different legal rules, which does not facilitate to understand the legal position, and this leads some authors to assert that the court while dealing with the issues of immunities ignores the fundamental rules of international law. Surprisingly all those accused by the ICC came from Africa, this fact has created a lot of speculation and particularly the court endeavors to prosecute African heads of states has created a real tension between the ICC and the African Union (AU) The result of this paper shows that the ICC has dealt the issue of immunity in a manner that has strained its relationship with African states, and African Union. The argument provided by the court concerning immunity of heads of state who are not signatories of the Rome Statute was not convincing and as a result, the court has lost its authority in Africa. This fact continues to threaten states to ratify the Rome statute and it gives an opportunity to some member states to withdraw from the organization.