Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda in Latin America had adopted amnesties following periods of human rights violations by repressive regimes in an effort to shield officers from accountability for violations. In this regard, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declared invalid a blanket amnesty in Peru in 2001, which was found to discourage investigations and deny any remedy to the victims. 71 Following the precedent that it set in the blanket amnesty in Peru, the Inter-American Court has since declared the amnesty laws in Chile, Argentina and El Salvador to be incompatible with the States’ duty to prosecute crimes and human rights violations.72 291. While it is acknowledged that many types of amnesties have been adopted across the world, unconditional amnesties with no accompanying accountability measures are particularly problematic in terms of States’ compliance with international obligations, most particularly relative to their duties to respect and protect human rights. Although this is the first instance where the African Commission addresses the issue of amnesties in reasonable detail, there have been instances in particular communications in which the Commission found legal measures completely excluding prosecution with no alternative measures of accountability as being incompatible with the provisions of the African Charter. For example, the Commission held that amnesties could be contrary to the right of individuals to have their cause heard under Article 7(1) of the African Charter,73 unless they are conditional and constitute justifiable and proportional limitations acceptable under international law. 292. In its normative elaboration of the provisions of the African Charter as well, the African Commission advanced the view that blanket amnesties constitute Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Barrios Altos v. Peru, (2001), paras. 41-44.; Loazya Tamayo v Peru, (Reparations) para 168, (“states…may not invoke existing provisions of domestic law, such as the Amnesty Law in this case, to avoid complying with their obligations under international law.”) 72 Human Rights Watch, Selling Justice Short: Why Accountability matters for peace, Report (2009), p. 17 73 See Communication 245/02: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe 71 79 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018