The agreement between judge and offender, based on theory of contractualization of criminal law, is considered a new strategy. The positive effects of this institution have led domestic legislators to benefit from contractualized criminal law in their criminal policy. However, the promotion of this strategy in international courts is not agreed upon by scholars. The main issue of research is to find an answer to the question of what is the position of mentioned strategy in the trials of the ICC? The research findings indicate that these solutions are considered legitimate only if they do not contradict the goals of the ICC trials, such as retribution, deterrence, truth-telling, and combating impunity; consequently, solutions that bypass prosecution and punishment are considered illegitimate. Plea bargaining, I Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and the verbal or actual agreement of the offender plays a central role in them. Of course, it should also be noted that the ICC is limited in accepting and implementing this strategy, and these obstacles have led to the offender's will playing a minor role in determining the fate of the case. In other words, the mentioned cases are minimal capacities that are embedded in the law and practice of the I CC even in these few cases, there is no binding aspect.