International organizations customarily receive immunities from national jurisdictions so that they may execute their specified mandates and functions without undue interference. However, this immunity results in inherent limitations on access to justice for victims of wrongdoing perpetrated by international organizations. The case of Rodriguez et al. v Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) in the United States exemplifies such limitations, as the claimants who were allegedly trafficked by the PAHO only received limited justice under the American system of immunities. However, other national jurisdictions provide for exceptions to immunities based on a concern for claimants' human rights and access to justice, with the possibility that cases like Rodriguez et al. v PAHO would have starkly different outcomes for legal recourse available to victims. This possibility is especially promising in jurisdictions with strong human rights regimes, with Europe being a prime example of such a jurisdiction. This paper examines the predicted outcomes for the case model provided by Rodriguez et al. v PAHO under two different European national jurisdictions - Belgium and the Netherlands - and their respective systems of exceptions to international organizations' immunities. The outcomes are analyzed with particular attention paid to their implications for the human rights of the claimants and the insights gained into the legal mechanisms and structures that are most crucial for and most harmful towards the human rights of claimants.