This thesis examines the justifications of amnesty for human rights violations. It is argued that amnesties adopted in a transitional context are usually considered a direct hinder to transitional justice, especially to criminal trials, but also to truth and compensation mechanisms. Yet the paradox is that an amnesty may also form an integrated element of transitional justice mechanism, for example by incorporation in a truth-commissions mandate. The purpose of this study is to explore this paradox by analyzing the arguments for and against amnesties, and the relationship between amnesty and transitional justice. Arguments for and against amnesty are presented, and perspectives of transitional justice are used in order to explore the justification of amnesty. Lastly, Law 975 of Colombia is analyzed in relation to transitional justice perspectives, as an example of a law where amnesty is included. The study concludes that amnesty may be justified from a transitional justice perspective, and has the potential to contribute to the achievement of peace and justice, given that it contains alternative accountability measures.