The struggle for recognition of genocide implies an internal coherence on the part of the victims and the Just in order to be efficient against the perpetrators. This coherence appears to be a requirement which obviously, if we are exclusively in the field of human rights, is not obvious to place it within a political and diplomatic context. Thus we apparently see not the problem of unity but of the unicity of genocide. Each peoples that has suffered genocide considers that it is unique because its genocide is unique. Only this cannot be the point of view of the defenders of human rights. Because whether we like it or not, by definition, crimes against humanity are not independent. And this property renders them ontologically different from crimes of war. Humanity as the core of this research question extends its structure of the given data to all genocides. Also we cannot enter into the rhetoric phase of comparing the importance of genocides. Genocides are incomparable by nature because they are all crimes against humanity. The defenders of human rights cannot therefore approve statements and acts that denigrate the status of a particular genocide. Otherwise, they would operate for the good of the perpetrators since one of them could not be considered as such. Also the others could utilize his case for their own contestation for the accusation made against them. In this challenging game of comparisons, it is impossible to get out unharmed. Because on the pretext of reinforcing his case, negative statements against others can be efficiently exploited by the opposing party. Each positive point has multiple negative counteractions. Also this strategy should not be followed if we are to truly achieve recognition of a genocide. As crimes against humanity have a common intersection by nature, recognitions are not, any longer, independent. Within the framework of human rights recognition can directly or indirectly serve another. Because they both represent legal cases that have to be examined in the same manner, even if they are incomparable cases. However, with the notion of genocide we cannot be satisfied with a local optimization, only the global optimization is important n the eyes of Humanity. Because the peoples represent basic paradigms of her nature. It is obvious that each peoples want to bring forward their own case. The differences have meaning at the level of peoples and not in that of Humanity. It is these principles that follow structures like the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal or the European Court of Human Rights and it is in this sense that we must fight as defenders of human rights for the recognition of genocides. Because each non condemned genocide can help the birth of another. This is not a theoretical eventuality but a historical fact and it is against that which we must act as it befits.