This dissertation examines the adjustments that Dutch courts have made to the practice of Dutch criminal procedure in order to overcome the evidential limitations of atrocity crimes cases and thereby ensure fairness of proceedings and accurate fact-finding. To this end, this study investigates and analyses the impact that the evidential limitations of atrocity crimes cases have on the roles of the participants in criminal proceedings in ensuring accuracy of fact-finding and fairness of proceedings. It also looks into whether there is a recurrent theme underlying the changes that the practice of Dutch criminal procedure has undergone in the course of adjudicating atrocity crimes. Moreover, this study assesses whether the adjustments that were made to the practice of Dutch criminal procedure have enabled trial courts to ensure fairness of proceedings and conduct accurate fact-finding in atrocity crimes cases. The central research question is: Which adjustments have Dutch courts made to national criminal procedure in order to overcome the evidential limitations, and have they thereby succeeded in ensuring fairness of proceedings and conducting accurate fact-finding in atrocity crimes cases? This study is divided into two parts. Part I addresses the relevance of the case law of the ECtHR with respect to the right to confrontation for the evaluation of witness evidence in criminal proceedings, analyses the way in which Dutch courts have gone about guaranteeing the right to confrontation in the Dutch legal order and examines the approach to evaluating witness evidence in atrocity crimes cases in light of the right to confrontation. Part II of this dissertation analyses the interpretation and application of the defendant’s right to participate in the pre-trial evidence gathering process.