The creation of a division “Genocides and crimes against humanity” in the First Instance Tribunal of Paris is not an opportunity but a necessity. Not only does this correspond to a demand for efficiency concerning law, but it also represents a complementary tool in relation to the Hague International Penal Court action. Furthermore, this trend is not only a sudden impulse on the part of Bernard Kouchner who has a long history in the Human Rights domain. The fact that he is currently Minister of Foreign Affairs is not but a combination of circumstances, even though this was not due to chance. No way has his mentality changed in this domain; simply his current status allows him to concretize certain theoretical ideas. In addition, the concept of a division is a more profound mental strategic scheme and a means to materialize judicial actions with enhanced efficiency. The problem intrinsic to the recognition of genocides and in general of crimes against humanity derives from dispersion of raw data. This is interpretable in the framework of Stanton’s eight phases. Thus, judiciary regrouping is a good means to avoid underlying bureaucratic problems. Moreover, it is true that this methodology isn’t at an experimental stage. It is being used with good results in cases of large scope. So, it is naturally applicable in the cases of genocide and crimes against humanity. The division would be an instrument and not a supplementary institution only for the international judiciary apparatus, which is in need of being in any way strengthened. The Palace of the United Nations in Geneva, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the International Penal Court in Hague do not perform a redundant work. Furthermore, in the more specific framework of genocides and crimes against Humanity, where we often have de facto interventions by any State institution aiming to hide, justify and delete a crime of this type, this division will not be superfluous. By gathering means and regrouping procedures it will be possible to attain the worthy objectives of Raphael Lemkin’s evaluation through the activation of a synergy process. When we think of the means used to commit genocide or more broadly a crime against humanity, this new creation is even more indispensable to struggle against what suits to be called genocide of memory. Last, those who wish to politicize this debate are simply out of the box and will not have any impact on true problematic of Human rights. For, this is not about a societal phenomenon but a necessity for Humanity.