The question asked most frequently, by lawyers and non-lawyers alike, in respect of the South African amnesty scheme is whether it can be a model for other societies in transition. And indeed, for all its limitations and flaws, the preceding analyses have shown that the conditional amnesty which South Africa chose to implement is capable of securing a number of important objectives. It has the capacity to attract large numbers of perpetrators, whose submissions constitute, at a minimum, an acknowledgment of responsibility in the form of agency, and often add more (and more reliable) information to the historical record than could have been expected to result from criminal trials. It provides a modicum of satisfaction to victims by offering them participatory options that go beyond what could be made available to victims in a criminal trial. The opportunities for confrontation which it creates may also assist some individual victims in their personal quest for understanding and closure. Despite the fact that the outcome of the process ultimately shields perpetrators of often heinous crimes against legal liability and punishment, and in doing so also denies victims the satisfaction that usually accompanies a criminal conviction and sentence, the process achieves a significant degree of personal accountability. It can credibly be argued that, provided it is implemented appropriately, this kind of amnesty constitutes a successful way of dealing with the aftermath of civil conflict.