The Convention Against Torture is an international treaty, the primary purpose of which is to prevent cruel behavior. States A and B cannot reach an agreement about this Convention for an extensive period, which is why state A decides to submit the case for adjudication. This paper will examine the dispute between states A and B, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) based on its statute, and the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in this case. With the dispute between state A and state B, it is essential to consider the issue of jurisdiction. This concept describes the official power granted to a party that can make decisions. Therefore, for state A to have a decision that will be legal, it has to submit the case to the correct jurisdiction. In Article 30 of the Convention against Torture, it is stated that one of the State parties can present the case for arbitration in case a dispute with other parties cannot be resolved through negotiations. Arbitration implies engaging an arbiter who can independently assess the case and make a conclusion based on the unbiased and objective opinion regarding the implications of the discussed Convention. Hence, the article confirms that ICJ can review a dispute case if the states are unable to negotiate, however, there are some specifics to this case that will be examined in detail. It is important to understand the jurisdiction of the ICJ to evaluate whether the solution of state A is justified. ICJ can provide both binding and non-binding rulings, with the latter serving as advice for the parties. The bindings rulings are for controversial cases between states if the two parties agree on submitting the verdict to the court. In this case, it appears that only state A decided to present the case to ICJ, and state B was not engaged in the process. Based on the ICJ’s statute, the principle of consent is the crucial matter that allows the court to review cases. Hence, both states A and B have to agree to send the case to the court. However, an issue arises when considering Article 30 of the Convention, where it is stated that “any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice.” This is true for the cases when parties cannot reach an agreement when choosing an arbiter for six months. Therefore, ICJ does not possess the jurisdiction to review the case because state B did not agree to submit the case in the first place. The role of the ICC is to prosecute individuals for crimes against humanity. ICC could play a role in this case if state B committed crimes that have to be reviewed under tribunal. However, not all states recognize the jurisdiction of ICJ. Since individual states can refer cases to this court, state A can use this opportunity, however, only if it aims to prosecute an individual or an institution. To conclude, in the case of a dispute between parties A and B, the ICC cannot be the arbiter because the states have to hold negotiations to determine the arbiter that will be suitable for both parties. This is consistent with the ISJ’s statute, which highlights the importance of participation of both parties in the case. However, Article 30 of the Convention allows one of the states to submit the case to ICJ if an agreement