Punishment practice and theory in International Criminal Law (ICL) is largely modelled on domestic criminal law. This 'domestic analogy' is flawed. It ignores the fact that ICL does not operate as part of a political community; international criminal justice operates in a vacuum. Punishment and sentencing in ICL is an imperfect, one-sided process. For the post-trial and restorative justice-part it reverts back to the sovereign State. This can be hugely problematic as this paper shows. The domestic analogy works to the extent that international courts can incorporate and apply theories of punishment in imposing sentences. It does not work when it comes to the restorative and reconciliatory aspects of sentencing. This is deplored and international lawmakers, States and NGOs are called upon to set up a post-trial system of resettlement and reintegration for acquitted and sentenced persons. If States support the fight against impunity through a system of prosecution and adjudication, they should accept this part of criminal justice too.