Source: (2007) International Journal of Transitional Justice. 1:208-230.
When states are attempting to recover from periods of serious human rights abuse, they
often must try to reconcile the competing demands of different stakeholders. These
demands may range from claims that complete impunity is a necessary sacrifice to
achieve peace, to the belief that without justice no meaningful peace can be reached. This
paper will attempt to highlight the ways in which international courts and quasi-judicial
bodies address the dilemma of peace versus justice, in relation to amnesty laws. The discussion
will consider the main international standards on impunity, the international
jurisprudence relating to amnesties and whether international courts should recognize
amnesties that are accompanied by alternative forms of justice. This paper will argue that
international courts should recognize amnesties that are introduced with democratic
approval to promote peace and reconciliation, provided that they are accompanied by
mechanisms to fulfil the victims’ rights. (author’s abstract)
Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.
Donate Now