Over the last few months, the European Court of Human Rights has been heavily criticised in the Dutch media and by Dutch politicians. Although the criticism is mainly directed at the perceived overextension of the Court’s fundamental rights protection, it also concentrates on fundamental issues such as the interference with national sovereignty that is affected by supranational adjudication and the anti-democratic character of supranational judicial review. In this contribution to the debate, it is argued that the present criticism of the Court is largely misconceived. Although the Court and its case law should certainly not be accepted uncritically, the arguments on which the criticism is based either lack nuance or disregard the Court’s specific function as a protector of fundamental rights. To provide a better basis for sensible and relevant criticism of how the Court functions, this contribution therefore aims to revisit the main roles of the European Convention on Human Rights and of international human rights protection, as well as the classic debate on judicial review.