Despite the increasing recognition of victims as legitimate stakeholders in criminal proceedings, the laws pertaining to universal jurisdiction have often neglected the interests of victims. This research aims to address this issue by examining the potential for revisiting universal jurisdiction adopted in human rights treaties as a legal mechanism that serves the interests of victims. Notably, this study seeks to fill a gap in existing literature by focusing on the examination of positive laws. The primary objective of this thesis is to identify whether individuals possess legally protected interests, referred to as their rights, in relation to universal jurisdiction established under human rights treaties. This analysis encompasses various aspects, including the examination of legal frameworks of universal jurisdiction adopted in human rights treaties, international (quasi-)judicial dispute settlement mechanisms concerning the implementation of universal jurisdiction based on human rights treaties, and the the relationship between universal jurisdiction engendered in human rights treaties and the substantive rights of victims established under human rights law. The findings of this research highlight the pivotal role of legal standing of victims in individual communications and the right to a remedy for victims. These factors contribute to the reconstruction of universal jurisdiction established in human rights treaties as a tool that effectively serves the interests of victims.