Protecting the rights of victims in transitional justice: An interrogation of amnesty

Abstract

The authors argue in this article that some categories of amnesty programmes, such as ‘blanket’ and ‘self-granted amnesties’ that bar the prosecution of perpetrators, have not been very helpful in the protection of the rights of victims in transitional justice. They contend, before embarking on widespread abuses of human rights since the post-ICJ era, that most perpetrators, especially dictators, often are aware of the legal odds but feel confident that if their regimes collapse, they would press for amnesty at least in return for a transitional process involving cooperation, surrender, confession, reparation and reconciliation. The Chilean, Peruvian and Sri Lankan cases have become citeable precedents. This reliance presents these categories of amnesty as unjust instruments of transitional justice. The article proposes a rule of law-based transitional justice that will involve an adjustment in the international law as a viable alternative to some amnesty programmes that appear to shield perpetrators from justice.