The debate between peace and justice has been a longstanding and complicated matter. Amnesties, aimed at promoting national reconciliation and ending civil wars, are seen as a means to achieve peace. However, amnesties can also be controversial as they may protect perpetrators from being held accountable for their actions. The appropriate circumstances for using amnesties might be in cases where the crimes committed are less severe. Amnesty may be more appropriate as a means of resolving a conflict, also worth bearing the likelihood of successful prosecution. The examples of Argentina, Spain, and Brazil illustrate the complex nature of amnesties and the potential consequences they may have.
The Lei de Anistia, or Amnesty Law, passed in Brazil in 1979, granted immunity to individuals responsible for political crimes committed during the 1964-1985 military dictatorship from facing legal consequences. The law was initially intended to provide a framework for national reconciliation and to allow activists in exile to return to Brazil (McAnarney & Montgomery, 2019). However, military officials abused the law for their shield from being held accountable for human rights crimes.
In Spain, a 1977 amnesty law was enacted to help move the country away from its past during the Civil War and Franco’s dictatorship. The law provided amnesty for political prisoners and ended trials against Francoist officials, but it also prevented victims from seeking justice for crimes committed during the dictatorship. Today, Spain is grappling with the consequences of the amnesty law and how it has prevented the full accountability of the past (Democracy Now, 2018). Argentina provides a different example of the effects of amnesties. In 1986, a presidential amnesty was given to individuals who engaged in human rights violations during the 1976-1983 military rule in the country. The pardon sparked a public outcry and led to a push for accountability and the eventual repeal of the amnesty.
In conclusion, the examples of Argentina, Spain, and Brazil suggest that amnesties have both positive and negative effects. These developments may result in national reconciliation, but they can also shield perpetrators from prosecution. The consequences of amnesties are felt not only by the victims of the past but also by potential future victims. A strong judicial system that protects the honor of victims and prevents atrocities is essential for achieving the goals of human rights, citizenship, and democracy.
References
Democracy Now. (2018). “The silence of others”: New film warns against Spain’s fascist history repeating itself [Video]. YouTube. Web.
McAnarney, A., & Montgomery, A. (2019). Brazil on the 40th anniversary of the amnesty law. Open Democracy. Web.