5. Conclusion The fundamental question that has been examined in the sections above, is whether amnesty works for or against peace in countries in transition from violence to peace. It could be concluded that the answer to the question will largely depend on the context, actors, interests and the sensitivities associated with the peace gained. Amnesty does not work automatically for or against peace, it can either work for peace, but at the same time can also strengthen national divides leading to negative peace and a potential relapse into violence. As was the case in some of the countries mentioned above such as Sierra Leone. In Zimbabwe, amnesty could be used as a political tool to reveal the truth on the atrocities suffered by victims since the war of independence. Since independence, there has never been any genuine effort to seek the truth. Rather, amnesty has been employed as an instrument for excusing atrocities committed by state actors. Such an approach denies the victims of their rights and needs for justice. Thus, regional and ethnic divides persisted and led to constant tension and upheavals in the country. The paper has assessed the need for a departure from business as usual and the need for a clear examination of the logical and just path that Zimbabwe should take if it is to address violations of the past and to also address the historical legacies of tyranny and usurpation. It is important to note that an amnesty is a tool, and the outcome of its use will depend heavily on the way it is used. For amnesty to promote reconciliation, its utilization must be conditioned. A clear definition of its geographic and temporal scope, and the crimes it covers must be given beforehand. To comply with Zimbabwe's international obligations and national Constitution, amnesty should not be granted for the most important international crimes committed by state actors. Further, amnesty should only be granted when the perpetrator accepts to reveal the full truth about the acts he or she is accused of. Amnesty is thus a way to reach truth, with the aim of fostering national healing and reconciliation. But as part of this global transitional justice process, choices must be made to balance amnesty with other mechanisms such as truth seeking, criminal prosecution, reparation, and institutional reform. 11