This is a good article to explain why it is probably a mistake that the International Criminal Court recently indicted Omar al-Bashir, the leader of Sudan.  Though in the end the piece is supportive, note the criticism quoted below:

"Sudan is in the midst of a difficult but still promising transition, but it may not succeed if al-Bashir's only choices are to live as a hunted criminal facing arrest and trial on genocide charges, or to cling to power forever. More immediately, his indictment could wreck the possibility of a peace deal to end the war in Darfur. So most of the northern opposition parties opposed the ICC's action, too."

While it is morally satisfying to think that a particularly odious leader will eventually face justice like Slobodon Milosevic or Saddam Hussein or even, now Karadzic, indicting a current head of state is also very dangerous.

Though true he may never have been incentivized to give up power anyway, now, it is practically guaranteed that Bashir will never be able to be eased out of power.  In the past, bribing dictators could work to one's advantage by offering them somewhere to go safely once relinquishing power.  By foreclosing that option, Bashir is now essentially being backed into a corner and may make him even more difficult to work with.  Ultimately, that could mean even more death and destruction for the beleaguered of Darfur.

At least with Milosevic, Saddam, and Karadzic, as well as former Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, they were indicted after they were out of power and no longer had the state apparatus at their disposal.  I think this is, again, a bit of cheap moralizing, where the intent is deemed more important than the actual outcome.  I think that is a fundamental mistake. 

We should not turn a blind eye to the misdeeds of a regime, but the first order of business must always be to stop the bad that is currently happening and not facilitating any backtracking that could reignite dangers, even if that means having to wait to find the satisfaction of moral vindication.