Amnestia bola tradične použivana ako politicky nastroj kompromisu. Amnestia umožňuje, aby „štat zabudol“ trestne činy, pri ktorych spravidla došlo k trestnemu stihaniu. Akt amnestie sa spravidla vzťahuje na skupinu ľudi, ktori sa dopustili určitych trestnych činov. Tieto ustavne vysady (niekedy všeobecne nazyvane ako „zhovievavosť“), koncepčne vyplyvaju z monarchistickej ideologie. V uvodnej časti članku sme zadefinovali pojem amnestia, milosť a jednotlive formy amnestie a milosti: aboliciu, agraciaciu a rehabilitaciu. V samotnom obsahu članku, sme venovali najvačšiu pozornosť rozhodnutiu o amnestii jako prameňu prava na uzemi Slovenskej a Českej republiky, zamerali sme sa najma na historicky vyznamne rozhodnutia o amnestii. Vkontexte judikatury ustavneho sudu sme aj analyzovali, či rozhodnutie udeliť amnestiu je (ne)odvolateľne.
Amnesty has traditionally been used as a political tool of compromise. Amnesty allows the state “to forget” criminal acts, usually before prosecution has occurred. An act of amnesty is generally granted to a group of people who have committed crimes. These constitutional prerogatives (sometimes generally called “clemency”) are conceptually resulting from monarchist ideology. In the introductory part of article, we defined the notion of amnesty, grace, and various forms of amnesty and grace: abolition, agraciation and rehabilitation. The article focuse mostly on amnesty as a source of law in the territory of Slovakia and Czech Republic, while we pay special attention to historically important amnesty decisions. In the context of the case law of the Constitutional Court the article analysed whether the decision to grant amnesty is (ir)revocable.