much wider amnesty than previously set out in Libyan transitional laws.352 with amnesty by the Resolution. Further, it is uncertain whether the general amnesty is extended to the armed forces of the Sudanese government. If it is, it may be inconsistent with the Juba Peace Agreement, which includes only political leaders and members of the “armed movements” in its amnesty provisions.353 In Sudan, the 12 November 2020 Sovereign Council Resolution No. 489 introduced a general amnesty for those who previously carried weapons or participated in military operations in Sudan. Despite the Resolution excluding certain groups from benefiting from the amnesty, including those who have been indicted by the International Criminal Court and those accused of committing serious international crimes or grave human rights violations that fall within the mandate of the Special Criminal Court for Darfur, it may still be incompatible with international law. For example, it is not clear from the Resolution whether those who have committed serious international crimes or grave human rights violations outside Darfur are provided Importantly, ED should not be subject to a statute of limitation, and the passage of time should not be a valid defence or ground for a State to refuse the investigation of an ED, and/or to deny a victim redress in respect of such ED. To the extent that African States do not have an existing framework in place that fully captures and codifies the above obligations, such framework must be established. 352 International Criminal Court, The Prosecutor v Saif Al Islam Gaddafi, Case No. ICC-01/11-01/11, 28 September 2018. 353 REDRESS, A General Amnesty in Sudan – International Law Analysis, January 2021. 51