Summary In countries affected by recurrent conflicts, widespread amnesty is part of the transitional “compromise”. These amnesty measures are often seen as a means to dampen divisions between former combatants in the domestic political process, encourage reforms in the security sector, a­nd enable elite political compromises during peace negotiations. In conflict-affected nations, human rights violations are often comparable to the most serious crimes of concern to the entire international community, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, a­nd sometimes genocide. On the other ha­nd, the development stage of international criminal law has been measured from the perspective of whether international law requires the relevant countries to prosecute a­nd punish crimes under international law. Under international law, the relationship between the obligation to control crimes under international law a­nd amnesty has remained ambiguous in the practice of the state. According to the European Court of Human Rights, amnesty for acts equivalent to a serious infringement of basic human rights, such as the willful killing of civilians, is generally accepted under modern international law to prosecute a­nd punish such acts. There is a growing tendency to see it as unacceptable because it is incompatible with the obligations of the nation. In this article, we will clarify how the Europearn Court of Human Rights is taking an attitude towards amnesty by States parties to crimes that constitute serious human rights violations.