To forgive and forget?

28 October 2009 by Hermione Gee and Karl Dowling

During Uruguay’s national election Sunday, voters were also asked to decide whether to overturn an existing amnesty law that protects military and police personnel accused of crimes committed during the 1973-1985 military junta.

Although the measure failed to pass, Uruguay’s amnesty law is an ongoing cause for controversy in the country and presidential candidate José Mujica has vowed to overturn the law if elected.

Mark Freeman is an expert on amnesty law and author of the forthcoming book, Necessary Evils: Amnesties and the Search for Justice. He spoke to the IJT’s Hermione Gee about today’s shifting attitudes towards amnesties.

How are amnesty laws applied?
Amnesty laws have always been a quite controversial topic, especially today in the era of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Historically, amnesty was used to actually draw a line in the sand in terms of the past, to basically say there were some terrible things that happened in the past but for the sake of our society’s future we are not going to look back but look forward. But things have really shifted, in the past decade in particular. In fact it’s almost a sea change, and today amnesties are generally considered - especially if they cover crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide - to be unacceptable by, among others, the United Nations Secretariat.

Want to read more?

If you subscribe to a free membership, you can read this article and explore our full archive, dating back to 1997.

Subscribe now

Related articles

article
19 February 2007 by Laetitia Grotti

One year ago on January 6, 2006, the 17 members of Morocco's Equity and Reconciliation Commission (IER) were closing up shop after submitting their final report to King Mohammed VI. The Moroccan truth commission had received a flood of compliments from the international community praising the recommendations in its report, especially those advocating legislative and constitutional reforms. One year later, however, the results have been rather mixed.

article
11 September 2006 by our correspondent in Arusha

After having tried high-ranking officers, ministers, businessmen, priests, journalists, local officials and militiamen, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is in uncharted waters. On September 11, the most famous rwandese troubadour of his generation will stand trial for genocide. 

article
23 October 2006 by Christine Chaumeau

China is keeping a polite distance from international criminal justice. Beijing is hardly disinterested, but China does want to make sure that these new global mechanisms are not going to infringe upon its sovereignty by delving into particularly sensitive cases such as Tibet. 

article
United Nations Operation in Burundi disarms rebel forces in Mbanda in February 2005 (Photo: Flickr/UN Photo/Martine Perret)
03 June 2015 by Janet H. Anderson, The Hague (The Netherlands)

Over the last month, Burundi has hit the headlines as the president put himself forward to be elected for a controversial third term, resulting in street protests, thousands of refugees who fled instability and an attempted coup. Behind the issues of elections and constitutionalism are also those of justice following Burundi’s long-running civil war. The international community supported an intensive process of negotiation and the signing of the Arusha Accord in 2000. But in the decade and a half since, its provisions on justice have been debated though never fully implemented.

article
06 November 2006 by Pierre Hazan

France's attitude towards international criminal justice is marked by ambiguity. Paris subscribes to a vision of the world in which international humanitarian law is considered a way to curb violence against civilian populations, but at the same time it is wary of an unchecked judicial system that could end up prosecuting French soldiers engaged in areas where it has old and deep-rooted interests.