Yes, the ICTR faced various criticisms during its tenure. One of the primary critiques was its expense; the tribunal was seen by some as a costly endeavour with a limited number of convictions. Others criticised the ICTR for being removed from the Rwandan populace, given its location in Arusha, Tanzania, arguing that this geographical separation limited its impact on Rwandan societal reconciliation. There were also concerns about the lengthy duration of trials and perceived inefficiencies in the proceedings. Lastly, some felt that the tribunal was a form of 'victor's justice', given that it predominantly tried Hutu individuals and did not extensively probe crimes committed by the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).

Witness protection was paramount to the successful functioning of the ICTR, given the sensitive nature of testimonies and the potential risks to witnesses. The ICTR implemented a robust Witness and Victims Support Section (WVSS) to safeguard those testifying. This included measures such as the relocation of witnesses to safe countries, the use of pseudonyms, voice distortion, and face-blurring during testimonies. Additionally, the tribunal provided psychological support and counselling to witnesses, acknowledging the traumatic nature of their experiences and the emotional toll of testifying. The ICTR's witness protection framework set significant standards for subsequent international tribunals.

The ICTR had a notable influence on the Rwandan national justice system. While the tribunal handled high-profile cases, Rwanda's domestic courts and the community-based Gacaca system dealt with thousands of lower-level perpetrators. The ICTR provided a legal precedent for these national efforts, especially in terms of defining and prosecuting genocide-related crimes. Moreover, the tribunal offered training and capacity-building initiatives for Rwandan legal professionals, aiming to bolster the national judicial system's competence. The shared endeavour of seeking justice after the genocide created opportunities for mutual learning and cooperation between the ICTR and Rwanda's domestic legal entities.

The selection of defendants for trial at the ICTR was a process that prioritised those holding the highest responsibility for the genocide. Given the vast number of perpetrators, it was impractical to prosecute all involved. Hence, the ICTR focused on the intellectual authors, political leaders, military chiefs, and key figures in the media who played significant roles in orchestrating and inciting mass violence. This strategy aimed to address the core leadership that enabled the genocide while allowing Rwanda's national courts and community-based Gacaca court system to deal with lower-level perpetrators, facilitating a broader, multi-tiered approach to justice.

The ICTR collaborated with numerous regional and international entities to ensure its effective operation. Given its mandate under the United Nations, the tribunal worked closely with various UN bodies for logistical and operational support. The ICTR also engaged with NGOs, especially for tasks related to witness support, gathering evidence, and post-trial assistance. The tribunal coordinated with individual nations for the arrest and extradition of suspects and relied on the international community's collective commitment to apprehend key figures hiding overseas. These collaborations were vital in navigating the challenges posed by operating an international court in a post-conflict setting.