As far as Europe is concerned, you might want to have a look at the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as well as the EU's European Court of Justice. If you google either you should easily find their respective websites.

It depends on countries like South africa, they had Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC ) that they gave amnesty to aparthied criminals who sought pardon and confessed in public for their crimes but for the most countries the Suprem Cour is the last resort. 

Dear Das,

Supreme word itself reflect the highest court. Do you think any other Judicial authority would be superior to Supreme.

Supreme Court is last resort In most of the the Countries, but at the same time most of the countries have further extrajudicial mechanism as in India, where President has Pardoning power and similar power Governors have in the states.  Similar powers have been granted to the head of the state in various countries like Canada, USA, UK, Philippines, Chile, South Africa, France, Germany, Greece, Hong kong,  Iran, Ireland, Israel,  and many more countries.

It should be consider for the member countries of Council of Europe that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg can revise the judgments of national supreme courts.

 Also the Court of Justice of EU (it is related to the 28 member states of the EU), can review the decisions of the national courts.

In Germany, as well as in other countries, there is not one single highest court. Rather, cases are dealt with in a number of different high courts that belong to the federal level. The constitutional court is here responsible for constitutional interpretation. But, there is five other high courts, responsible for different legal fields: Bundesgerichtshof for criminal and civil law, Bundesarbeitsgericht for labor law, Bundessozialgericht for social security and welfare state questions, Bundesfinanzhof for questions of taxation, Bundesverwaltungsgericht for adminstrative law. All high courts together constitute the Joint Senate of the Supreme Courts (Gemeinsamer Senat der Obersten Gerichtshöfe). You can find more information on the European context here: John Bell, Judiciaries within Europe: A Comparative Review (Cambridge UP, 2006).

In many countries there are extrajudicial powers; as for example, Constitutional Court which is independent of regular judiciary but has the legislative powers and when it concerns individual complaints where judgments of national courts are in breach of Constitution then these judgments can be challenged. State Parties who ratified human rights legislation may also be subjected to international oversight by the international courts (like European Court on Human Rights or International Criminal Court) or quasi-judicial bodies (like European Council on Social and Cultural Rights, OHCRH Committee, CRPD Committee, etc.). So, the Supreme Court is last resort when it comes to more narrow regulations concerning individual case, but if the individual case shows systematic failures of judiciary or showing more extreme violations of constitutional and human rights, then the last resorts to get justice would be constitutional and international courts.

We need to give more emphasis on ADR rather than pushing people to existing costly and unpredictable litigation system. In most countries, formal justice system is marred with too many types of unfair and corrupt practices that need to be challenged by the people with strong appetite for fair and just system based on civility, humility, and comprehensive decency.   

Sometime we simply don't like to hear the voices of Nature and People, just rushing for coercive methods that are mostly detrimental to the rights of regular people.

By adding the words "in 21st Century", I believe your question is meant to have us apply to Justice the same globalism that impacts trade and other international interactions.  You might really ask, "should there be a World Court as the court of last resort to rule over all disputes?" 

The answer is "yes" only if you don't believe in the sovereignty of nations.  However, this would be a dangerous game to play; leading to nationalistic pushback from those who understand (or innately sense) that tribalism is actually a positive evolutionary force for the species.  

to the individual level yes it. however, when there involves a social, political, economic or a "matter of public concern" then the legislature may overturn or modify the judgment in the exercise of plenary or constituent legislative power. 

Thanks to all for admirable responses

But in India sometimes the question is raised against the apex court because it violets spirit of people. It is high time to pay concern on it.

.

S.s. Das I just one to make a remark here. Sometimes the path to find justice requires to be stopped. Suppose, in case of an ADR, for attaining its long-lasting result, it is required that the decisions coming out of the ADR mechanisms must not be challenged before a court. So at the primary level, it is jurisprudentially required to block the path for the parties to reach any court or any higher court (when it is a court annexed ADR).

So, in this matter, in this 21's century, the age of an emerging culture concerning out of the court settlements, Supreme Court is not the last resort of justice at all, rather sometimes urge for justice does not reach there for the sake of justice itself.