Crimes against humanity describe atrocious offenses on human dignity. This encompasses slaying, extermination, and captivity, among other barbaric acts invested against civilians, especially during war times (Bassiouni, 2002). This is not new, with documentation of crimes against humanity running down the history line to the First World War, where Turkish officials perpetrated crimes of this nature. A perfect example is the massive killing of over six million Jews who died at the hands of Nazis during world war two, what is commonly known as ‘the holocaust’ in contemporary times. However, the most stunning crime in the recent past is the Rwandan genocide in 1994, where over 500,000 people died as war broke out between two warring sides; the Hutus and the Tutsis (BBC news, 2008). Different modes of communication aired the news all over the world. However, the movie ‘Hotel Rwanda’ stole the day by bringing out the untold stories about this genocide in style. This is a consummate work portraying one of the ugliest historical events on crimes against humanity. In the movie, Don Cheadle acts as Paul Rusesabagina, a rich Hutu successful businessperson who has powerful connections with all classes of Rwandan life. Her wife urges him to use his massive influence to help the minority Tutsis from harassment and inhumane practices directed to them by the majority Hutus. However, Paul does not seem to take charge, not at that time. At around that time, the violence intensifies, and this marks the start of the massacre of Tutsis by Hutus. European invitees and workers residing in the hotel where Paul is a manager are taken out of the country immediately, leaving Paul in charge. As the massacre escalates, Paul, moved by his conscience, converts the hotel into a refugee camp to protect the innocent Tutsis from these atrocities. However, the most captivating event as the movie progresses is the reluctance of the international community to intervene to quell the raging storms. Apart from one journalist and Col. Oliver, a UN peacekeeping colonel, nobody else seems to bother to intervene. As the movie ends, one wonders about the role of international human rights groups in facilitating their mission per se. How does this movie address the issue of the international human rights watchdog in carrying out its mandate? This movie portrays a total failure on the part of the international human rights watchdog in intervening at times of crimes against human rights, as witnessed in the Rwandan massacre. What else explains the fact that the international community sat back the massacre continued? In the movie, the international community seems to enjoy watching as the story unfolds. Moreover, if this was the case, then they would enjoy the drama of a long, drama of human massacre. For one hundred days when the massacre is taking place, not even a single voice is heard from the international community save for a journalist and Col. Oliver, the UN peacekeeping colonel. This may be a movie, a collection of documentation about the past, but it is a true depiction of how our structures are poorly established to carry out their missions. It is interesting how one man, Paul Rusesabagina, assumes the role of human rights wat