Available in Russian
Authors: Andrey Antonov, Oleksandr Yevsieiev
Keywords: accountability; amnesty; impunity; national reconciliation; pardon; post-conflict settlement; war crimes; переходное правосудие
Based on examples and previous studies, this article attempts to holistically comprehend amnesties as a tool of achieving national reconciliation following internal conflicts (civil wars, coups d’etat, etc.), and their positive and negative impacts on post-conflict state and society. Based on this evidence, the authors propose general solutions to conceptual problems related to the compliance of amnesties with the requirements of international law. A distinction is drawn between such amnesties, pardons, and general amnesties, whereas the authors also offer a classification of amnesties based on various criteria, including ratione temporis, ratione loci, and ratione personae. This article further provides a detailed analysis of the amnesties conducted in Hispanic countries during the so-called “third wave” of democratization. In this respect, the concept of “self-amnesties”, widely used in Latin American countries during the transition to democratic rule, is criticized as contradicting the very purpose of this institution. An attempt is made to construct some universal principles, with which the amnesties should comply regardless of the regional specifics. At the same time, attention is paid to the extremely cautious approach applied by human rights juridical mechanisms when they express their opinions on the legality of amnesties appearing in recent years in many parts of the world. This acknowledges the rejection of post-conflict amnesties as an increasing trend in international law, as such amnesties are perceived as incompatible with the generally accepted positive obligations of the state regarding criminal prosecution and punishment for war crimes and other serious crimes contrary to the commonly accepted norms of international law, including serious human rights violations. The article further discusses the position of the European Court of Human Rights, which emphasized that amnesties can in principle be acceptable only in very limited circumstances, such as if a state can substantiate that it is pursuing a vital interest through amnesty–namely peace and national reconciliation. Other international judicial bodies, particularly the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, also do not stand aside from the assessment of amnesties. This article provides critical analysis of some decisions of the Inter-American Court that related to amnesties in certain Latin American countries. The authors conclude that, being closely related to the overall concept of justice, amnesties inevitably cause conflicting feelings. It is vital for successful amnesties in particular circumstances to strike an optimal balance between state interests and the interests of victims.
About the authors: Andrey Antonov – Candidate of Sciences (Ph. D.) in Law, Chief, Conduct and Discipline Service, UN Mission in Kosovo. Pristina, Republic of Serbia; Oleksandr Yevsieiev – Candidate of Sciences (Ph. D.) in Law, Associate Professor, Higher School of Economics. Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Antonov A., Yevsieiev O. (2019) Amnistii v mekhanizme perekhodnogo pravosudiya [Amnesties in the mechanism of transitional justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.9, no.1, pp.118–133. (In Russian).
Aldana R. (2011) Ispravlyaya oshibki proshlogo i izlechivaya bolezni nastoyashchego: Gomes Lund i drugiye protiv Brazilii [Correcting the mistakes of the past and healing the wounds of the present: Gomes Lund and others v. Brazil]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.1, no.1, pp.55–60. (In Russian).
Alvarez J.E. (2009) Alternatives to International Criminal Justice. In: Cassesse A. (ed.) The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, pp.25–40.
Arsanjani M. (1999) The International Criminal Court and National Amnesty Laws. Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting, vol.93, 1999, pp.65–68.
Azan P. (2006) Vozdeystvie nakazaniya i proshcheniya: osnovy dlya otsenki rezul'tativnosti pravosudiya perekhodnogo perioda [The influence of punishment and forgiveness: the basics for evaluating the effectiveness of transitional justice]. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal Krasnogo Kresta, vol.88, no.861, pp.21–56. (In Russian).
Bennouna M. (2003) Truth, Justice and Amnesty. In: Vohrah L.C., Pocar F., Featherstone Y., Fourmy O., Graham Ch., Hocking J., Robson N. Man’s Inhumanity to Man: Essays of International Law in Honour of Antonio Cassese, The Hague; London; New York: Kluwer Law International, pp.127–136.
Cassesse A. (2003) International Criminal Law, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Dugard J. (1999) Dealing with Crimes of a Past Regime. Is Amnesty Still an Option? Leiden Journal of International Law, vol.12, no.4, pp.1001–1016.
Engstrom P., Pereira G. (2012) From Amnesty to Accountability: the Ebb and Flow in the Search for Justice in Argentina. In: Lessa F., Payne L. (eds.) Amnesty in the Age of Human Rights Accountability, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.97–122.
Ferdinandusse W.N. (2006) Direct Application of International Criminal Law in National Courts, The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
Garner B.A. (ed.) (2000) Blacks Law Dictionary, abridged 7th ed., St. Paul, MN: West Group.
Gorin D.,Epple N. (2018) Budushchee proshlogo [Future of past]. Obshchaya tetrad', no.1–2, pp.5–17. (In Russian).
Hayner P. (2018) The Peacemaker’s Paradox, New York: Routledge.
Karnavas M.G. Amnesties and Pardons in International Criminal Law – Part II. URL: http://michaelgkarnavas.net/blog/2016/07/22/amnesties-and-pardons-part-ii/ (accessed: 24.09.2018).
Kormilets A.A., Porshakov S.A. (1987) Krizis dvukhpartiynoy sistemy SShA nakanune i v gody Grazhdanskoy voyny (konets 1840-kh – 1865 gg.) [The crisis of the bipartisan system of the United States before and during the Civil War (the end of the 1840s to 1865)], Moscow: Izdatel'stvo MGU. (In Russian).
Kushleyko А. (2015) Accountability v. “Smart Amnesty” in the Transitional Post-Conflict Quest for Peace: A South African Case. In: Szablewska N., Bachmann S.-D. (eds.) Current Issues in Transitional Justice: Towards a More Holistic Approach, Cham: Springer, pp.31–54.
Ledyakh I.A. (1973) Natsistskie prestupniki i sudebnaya praktika v FRG [Nazi criminals and judicial practice in FRG], Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura. (In Russian).
Lessa F., Olsen T.D., Payne L.A., Pereira G., Reiter A.G. (2014) Persistent or Eroding Imputiny? The Divergent Effects of Legal Challenges to Amnesty Laws for Past Human Rights Violations. Israel Law Review, vol.47, no.1, pp.105–131.
Mallinder L. (2007) Can Amnesties and International Justice Be Reconciled? The International Journal of Transitional Justice, vol.1, no.2, pp.208–230.
Mallinder L. (2008) Exploring the Practice of States in Introducing Amnesties. Available at: URL: http://uir.ulster.ac.uk/2265/1/Mallinder_-_Nuremberg_chapter_June_20081.pdf (accessed: 20.09.2018).
Mallinder L. (2009) Indemnity, Amnesty, Pardon and Prosecution Guidelines in South Africa: Working Paper no.2 Beyond Legalism: Amnesties, Transition and Conflict Transformation, 79 Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Queens University, Belfast.
Mamdany M. (2015) Beyond Nuremberg: Learning from the Post-Apartheid Transition in South Africa. Makerere Institute of Social Research, Policy Brief, no.1, October. Available at: URL: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/55811/IDL-55811.pdf (accessed: 24.09.2018).
Naqvi Y. (2003) Amnistiya za voennye prestupleniya: vozmozhnost' mezhdunarodnogo priznaniya [Amnesty for military crimes: the opportunity of international recognition]. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal Krasnogo Kresta, pp.293–345. (In Russian).
Naqvi Y. (2010) Impediments to Exercising Jurisdiction Over International Crimes, The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
Nelaeva G. (2017) Rassmotrenie «prestupleniy protiv chelovechnosti» natsional'nymi sudami: problemy, diskussii, protivorechiya [“Crimes against Humanity” in the case law of domestic courts: problems, dilemmas, controversies] Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.7, no.1, pp.122–133. (In Russian).
O’Shea A. (2002) Amnesty for Crime in International Law and Practice, The Hague; London; New York: Kluwer International Law.
Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights (2009) Mekhanizmy obespecheniya verkhovenstva prava dlya postkonfliktnykh gosudarstv: Amnistii [The mechanisms of improving of the rule of law for post-conflict states: Amnesties], New York; Geneva: UN. URL: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Amnesties_ru.pdf (accessed: 20.09.2018). (In Russian).
Rousso H. (1994) The Vichy Syndrome, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sadurskiy V. (2016) Konstitutsionalizm perekhodnogo perioda versus verkhovenstvo prava? [Constitutionalism of the transitional period versus the rule of law?]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.25, no.3, pp.13–28. (In Russian).
Schabas W.A. (2004) Amnesty, The Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. University of California Davis Journal of International Law and Policy, vol.11, no.1, pp.145–169.
Slye R.C. (2002) The Legitimacy of Amnesties Under International Law and General Principles of Anglo-American Law: Is a Legitimate Amnesty Possible? Virginia Journal of International Law, vol.43, no.1, pp.173–247.
Stan L., Nedelsky N. (eds.) (2013) Encyclopedia of Transitional Justice. Vol.1, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.10–12.
Stern B. (1997) La compétence universelle en France: le cas des crimes commis en ex-Yougoslavie et au Rwanda. German Yearbook of International Law, vol.40, pp.280–299.
Trumbull Ch.P., IV (2007) Giving Amnesties a Second Chance. Berkeley Journal of International Law, vol.25, no.2, pp.283–345.
Wolfio C. (1764) Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractatum. Francofurti, Et Lipsiæ, Ære Societatis Venetæ. Available at: URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=66NyK2b5XTQC&pg=PA355#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed: 08.03.2019).