Russell Tribunal on Palestine, held in Barcelona.

The Russell Tribunal was created in order to judge American (among others) involvement and attitudes in Vietnam. It also judged some Latin American dictatorships, the Irak War and, more recently, alleged Israeli violations of human rights and European Union's complicity with Israel. Those responsible for the Tribunal's activities always claimed that it was based on international law.
The Tribunal finally found Israel guilty of apartheid and war crimes against Palestinians during military operations and while occupying the Palestinian territories, and European Union was found guilty of complicity, because it sold weapons to Israel, while legitimizing the occupation of the Palestinian territories and assisting Israel in it.
Was this Tribunal actually able to judge somebody or something? No. Why? The primary reason for it is that this Tribunal is not a real one. It has no authority to judge neither anybody nor anything. It's a symbolic Tribunal, not a real one appointed by a governmental department in order to judge and punish according to laws.
But more interesting is the nature of the Tribunal itself. This is just a part of the response (translated as accurate as possible, between quotation marks) of the Israeli Embassy in Spain:

"Without credibility nor moral weight. The self-denominated tribunal is exclusively constituted by people with a long anti-Israeli trajectory, like the payroll of people and institutions that support it. There's no a single independent voice, it's simply a lynching tribune which will stage the reading of a condemnatory sentence against Israel, whose script was decided since the same moment of its announcement. A condemnatory sentence as predictable as that which would be passed by a jury exclusively composed by Ku Klux Klan's members in a process against a coloured man."

Following this and other statements by the Israeli Embassy in Spain, we can find a link to the same statement with an interesting cartoon. Pay attention to it, please.
Also interesting are those statements made by Pilar Rahola and Jorge Marirrodriga. Pilar Rahola is a Spanish journalist from Catalonia, and a former leftist and nationalist politician, who considers herself pro-Israeli. She has her own website. We can find her statements about the Tribunal here.
She argues that it uses Bertrand Russell's name in vane, simplifies the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by reducing it to a dispute of good Palestinians and bad Israelis and is constituted by people with a long history of anti-Israeli attitudes, finally explaining that the Tribunal was financed by the Catalonian autonomous government and Barcelona's municipal council: "I claim for the returning of the money which, in my name, they've used to criminalize Israel."
Jorge Marirrodriga is also a Spanish journalist. He has a blog of his own entitled Sobre Israel Opinamos Todos (which could be translated as About Israel All of Us Think or About Israel All of Us Give an Opinion), where he criticizes anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic attitudes. The article in which he criticized the Tribunal can be found here.
He denounces the lack of morality of the Tribunal, claiming that it's an act of manipulation of the public opinion within the process of demonization of Israel. He also claims that the Russell Tribunal was used to revive the spirit of the movement against the United States' involvement in Vietnam, and that its members are delegitimizing Israel's right to exist while having failed to dennounce what is happening with enslaved societies. He finally exhorts the members of the Tribunal to ask Mosab Hassan Yousef "who is responsible for war crimes, what is Hamas and why it's worth to save lives even by facing his own father."

But this is not the first time this Tribunal is criticized due to its perceived political bias. Staughton Lynd, a self-declared social democrat pacifist, claimed in his book The War Crimes Tribunal: A Dissent (1967), that he was requested by Bertrand Russell to participate in the Tribunal, and that he rejected the invitation arguing that the Tribunal was biased against just one party involved in the Vietnam conflict.

Lynd wrote that "in conversation to the emissary who proffered the invitation, I argued that the alleged war crimes of any party to the conflict should come before the Tribunal. After all, I argued, a 'crime' is an action that is wrong no matter who does it. Pressing my case, I asked, 'What if it were shown that the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam tortures unarmed prisoners?' The answer, as I understood it, was, 'Anything is justified that drives the imperialist aggressor into the sea.' I declined the invitation to be a member of the Tribunal."

Please notice that driving the "aggressor" into the sea is what the Arabs and muslims want to do with the Israeli Jews.