  Other significant (if less conceptually interesting) criticisms of the international criminal courts hold that they do not focus sufficiently on the suffering of victims, concentrating, instead, on establishing the guilt of  perpetrators),[19]  that the proceeding tend to become technical and tedious, thus trivializing the horrors  being discussed,[20]  that there can be a discrepancy between the (Western) cultural norms central to legalism and the local traditions of the society in which atrocities tool  place,[21]  and that, in light of the repeated occurrence of genocide in the 20th century, the practice of international criminal law does not show great promise  of deterrence.[22] Leaders, such as Bashar al-Assad and Omar al-Bashir, who have the backing of major powers, have virtual impunity. Of course it is important to prosecute former heads of state, so as to demonstrate that political seniority is no guarantee of immunity from justice. The international tribunals serve a pedagogical purpose, drawing attention to pertinent issues such as child conscription.