This comparative, empirical study analyses the sentencing practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). It would appear that there are large differences in ICTY and ICTR sentencing practice. This apparent divergence is examined in greater detail by describing the sentencing behaviour of the courts in relation to different categories of crime, types of offence, scale of crime, modes of individual liability, 'ranking' of defendants and finally, aggravating and mitigating factors. Sentencing practice in light of the above factors is then juxtaposed to reveal the differences between the Tribunals and between different categories of cases. © Oxford University Press, 2011. All rights reserved.