The effect of amnesty measures on individual criminal responsibility within the framework of international criminal law

Abstract

The general and special types of amnesty are considered as a    waiver by the social body of all or some of their rights resulting from the crime, and the general amnesty is a sudden legal process with a radical effect issued by law through the legislative authority to remove the criminal character of an act that in itself is a punishable crime, so it becomes as if it was not criminalized, and becomes a waiver that erases the crime and removes its criminal effect.

General amnesty laws are often linked to the national reconciliation that states resort to and aim to put an end to any judicial prosecution for the crimes they cover. Amnesty laws prohibit criminal prosecution and sometimes civil prosecution against specific persons or groups of persons, in relation to criminal conduct specifically committed prior to the adoption of the amnesty decision and retroactively voiding any previously established legal liability. Amnesty decisions are often aimed at encouraging combatants to surrender their arms, building confidence between warring factions, facilitating peace agreements, releasing political prisoners, and encouraging exiles and deportees to return to their homes.

Noting that there are two types of amnesty: (general amnesty) and (special amnesty), and that there are fundamental differences between them and that there are important legal implications for them.

Within the framework of international law, amnesty has been the focus of jurists and specialists, especially since some international instruments stipulate the encouragement of amnesty measures as a means to support construction and concerted efforts to overcome the destructive effects of wars. Also, the International Committee of the Red Cross tended to narrow the scope of amnesty and not include it and apply it to people who commit violations of grave international humanitarian law.