Amnesty is often granted after a revolution or civil war, when the winning side extends the amnesty to the losers. For example, Confederate officials and soldiers were granted amnesty after the Civil War and were sometimes granted to illegal aliens so that they could legally remain in the country. Amnesty is different from a pardon because amnesty is the abolition and oblivion of crime, while a pardon is forgiveness. A pardon is always granted to a person who has been convicted, amnesty may be granted to a group or category of persons who have been convicted of a crime or not. President Joseph Kabila signed into law an amnesty law in May 2009. The law pardons combatants for war-related violence in the eastern provinces of North and South Kivu committed between June 2003 and May 2009 – with the exception of genocide, war crimes and international crimes against humanity. [14] Although limited in time and geographic scope, granting amnesty for many crimes committed by rebel groups, Congolese armed forces, militias and police risks perpetuating the culture of impunity in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [15] By passing an amnesty law that “sought to portray Lebanon as a national community” “capable of overcoming ideological disagreements and even armed conflicts,” the political elite promoted a policy of “no winner, no loser,”[41] similar to the amnesty policy of 1958. In this way, the political elite reconciled with each other by common interests and armed opponents were encouraged to set aside their differences in order to share political power.

[20] The adoption of the amnesty law allowed the continuation of the political careers of those who had committed crimes throughout the Lebanese civil war. Today, the leaders of some of the militias responsible for kidnappings during the Lebanese civil war are still government ministers. [40] During the War on Terror, the United States enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to regulate legal procedures for illegal combatants. Part of the act was an amendment that retroactively rewritten the War Crimes Act, allowing decision-makers (i.e., politicians and military leaders) and those who enforce policy (i.e., CIA interrogators and American soldiers), will no longer be prosecuted under the United States. Law for acts defined as war crimes before the adoption of the amendment. [54] For this reason, critics refer to the MCA as an amnesty law for crimes committed in the war on terror. [55] [56] The “No winner, no vanquished” policy, as invoked by former Prime Minister Saeb Salam, implied that no political party or sect in the country could eliminate any of the other parties or sects. All political groups should be represented in the political system in order to ensure coexistence and national unity in Lebanon and to preserve a nation tolerant of different religions and communities. While the intention of the amnesty policy on previous occasions focused on the idea of restoring order to the elite class, this was different in the case of the amnesty adopted in 1958. On the contrary, the amnesty policy of 1958 was accompanied by a preservation of the 1943 National Pact, which preserved a political sectarianism focused on protecting an equal proportion of Muslims and Christians in the Lebanese government.

[20] An amnesty law is a legislative, constitutional or executive provision that retroactively exempts a select group of people, usually military leaders and heads of government, from criminal responsibility for the crimes they commit. [1] Specifically, in the “age of accountability,” amnesty laws are considered impunity for human rights violations, including institutional measures that exclude prosecution for such crimes and pardon those already convicted, avoiding any form of accountability. [2] Faced with the successive defeats of the Druze, their leaders were convinced that an agreement had to be reached with Ibrahim Pasha to put an end to the revolt. In this agreement, The Druze insurgents were granted the aman, which referred to the concept of pardon or amnesty granted by a leader, and they were exempted from conscription in exchange for their disarmament. [24] In a letter, Pasha wrote to Bashir Shihab: The drafting of the amnesty law was motivated by some of the former commanders, who are known to have committed human rights violations and who felt threatened by the sudden emphasis on accountability. Although this law was never officially recognized as a law, it was of great political importance and served as a clear signal of the continued power of some perpetrators of human rights violations. [6] Uruguay granted amnesty to the former military regime for human rights violations committed under its regime. [57] Amnesty for “international crimes” – which include crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide – is increasingly considered prohibited by international law.

This understanding results from obligations set out in human rights treaties, decisions of international and regional tribunals and law resulting from long-standing State practice (customary international law). International, regional and national tribunals have increasingly lifted general amnesties. And recent peace agreements have largely avoided granting amnesty for serious crimes. [3] In this context, the International Criminal Court was established to ensure that perpetrators do not evade responsibility for their crimes if the local government does not prosecute. After the general rebellion led by Tanyus Shahin, which led to the overthrow of the remarkable Khazin family in Keserwan district, a third amnesty was granted in 1860 under the leadership of Ottoman governor Hurshid Pasha. Victims, their families and human rights organizations – e.B. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Humanitarian Law Project – have opposed these laws through protests and litigation, arguing that an amnesty law violates local constitutional law and international law by perpetuating impunity. Amnesty laws have posed a new challenge to the human rights movement in Peru. They have thwarted demands for truth and justice from thousands of family members of victims of political violence since the 1980s.

For example, after the overthrow of Alberto Fujimori in 2001, the Inter-American Court ruled that amnesty laws 26,479 and 26,492 were invalid because they were incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights. The court subsequently concluded that the decision applied to all Peruvian cases. [50] The 1991 amnesty law has also been criticized by the human rights organization Amnesty International, arguing that critical and impartial investigations into allegations of human rights violations should be conducted in order to “determine individual and collective responsibility and provide a full account of the truth to the victim, to his loved ones and to society”. [40] The 1991 amnesty law has been the subject of much academic and international criticism, particularly from a human rights perspective. The 1986 act (100 Stat. 3359, 8 U.S.C.A. §1101) aimed to reduce the number of aliens entering the United States illegally by punishing employers who had knowingly hired them. However, due to concerns expressed by both employers and leaders of immigrant communities, the law carried a risk: it included provisions for an amnesty that granted citizenship to illegal immigrants who had resided for some time. Chilean judge Juan Guzmán Tapia eventually dispensed with the jurisprudence on “crimes of permanent abduction”: the bodies of the victims could not be found, he considered that the abduction could continue and therefore refused to grant the army the benefits of the statute of limitations.

This led to the indictment of Chilean military personnel who benefited from a self-amnesty decree of 1978. As there is no specific legislative or constitutional mention of amnesty, its nature is somewhat ambiguous. Its legal justification derives from Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states: “The President […] is authorized to grant pardons and pardons for crimes against the United States, except in the case of impeachment. Because of their common ground, the difference between amnesty and pardon was particularly annoying. Theoretically, an amnesty is granted before the prosecution takes place, and a pardon after. But even this fundamental distinction is blurred — President GERALD R. FORD, for example, granted a pardon to President RICHARD M. NIXON before Nixon was charged with a crime. The courts have allowed the use of the two terms interchangeably. While an amnesty can be broad or narrow, covers one or more people, and can be seriously qualified (as long as the conditions are not unconstitutional), it cannot grant a license to commit future crimes.

Nor can it forgive crimes that have not yet been committed. .