With the emergence of more specialized regimes for the protection of human rights and the proliferation of treaty bodies, mandated to supervise compliance with these instruments, fragmentation has not only become an issue between human rights law and other fields of international law, but also within the body of human rights law. In this chapter I argue that conflicts of jurisprudence are more likely to occur than conflicts of jurisdiction. And while the general debate is mainly focused on the substantive dimension of fragmentation and on legal techniques for dealing with tensions or conflicts between legal rules or principles, fragmentation in international human rights law is mainly problematic from an institutional perspective: Problems are not caused by incompatible substantive provisions of human rights treaties but rather by colliding institutional preferences and structural biases of the different human rights treaty bodies.