This article aims to examine the necessary conditions for complementary jurisdiction in the International Criminal Court. In this regard, it can be said that the principle of complementary jurisdiction is one of the important issues of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. The question raised in this article is: for what purpose and under what conditions is complementary jurisdiction envisaged? The purpose of the Court's complementary jurisdiction is to end impunity, which is determined by respecting the sovereign rights of states, promoting criminal justice in countries, ensuring effective proceedings in court, and investigating the performance of the country's judicial system in combating impunity. The principle of complementary jurisdiction is the cornerstone of the International Criminal Court. If this method had not been seen in the Court's Statute, perhaps in today's political climate, the International Criminal Court would never have been established. This important principle organizes the foundation of the Court's interaction with the country's judicial authority and shows the mechanism for determining the Court's jurisdiction. By including the principle of complementary jurisdiction and emphasizing the priority of domestic authorities in dealing with international crimes, the drafters of the Statute took an important step in encouraging states to become members of the Statute. Therefore, it can be said that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is complementary to each other, meaning that the competent state must first be given the opportunity to take effective action against the crimes committed, and in the event of failure, whether due to inability or unwillingness, in such a way that the international authority rises up to compensate for the lack of national authority and takes the necessary measures. It should also be noted regarding the principle of inverse complementary jurisdiction that, based on this principle, domestic authorities can never handle a case due to the inability or unwillingness of the court or the claim of lack of originality. Therefore, the Court, as the authority responsible for compensating for the shortcomings of justice in the national arena, must be able to act in a way that monitors the performance of the government in this regard. This article aims to examine complementary jurisdiction in the International Criminal Court using a descriptive-analytical method and using library and documentary methods.