Reference

International courts typically respond to general amnesty laws in a complex manner, as these laws often intersect with international humanitarian law and human rights obligations. Generally, these courts take a cautious approach, emphasizing the accountability for serious international crimes. Here are a few key points regarding their stance:

1. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR): The IACHR has been critical of amnesty laws that prevent the prosecution of serious human rights violations. In cases like the Masacre del Mozote, the Court has held that such laws are incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights (source).

2. Special Court for Sierra Leone: In the context of the Lomé Accord Amnesty, the Special Court for Sierra Leone determined that state-granted amnesties do not preclude international prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity (source).

3. Customary International Law: It is emerging that "blanket amnesties," which provide immunity from prosecution for serious crimes, are increasingly viewed as contrary to international norms. These amnesties are only considered permissible if they are necessary to end conflict, are equally applied, and are narrowly tailored to specific contexts (source).

Overall, while international courts recognize the role amnesties can play in fostering peace and reconciliation, they consistently underscore the importance of accountability for international crimes and the protection of human rights.