A/HRC/34/63 results of a national survey carried out from October 2014 to April 2015 confirmed the view that victims wanted perpetrators to be held criminally accountable.14 58. The objective of any transitional justice policy in South Sudan should be to end the current culture of impunity and to re-establish the rule of law. The current context is deeply troubling, given the questions surrounding the legitimacy of the peace agreement and the power-sharing model; the fact that large parts of the country are under the control of nonState actors; and that State institutions are largely absent or have been displaced by nonState groups. 59. One prerequisite to implementing any transitional justice mechanism is the political will of the Government to create an environment allowing for an honest and credible inquiry into the truth about past human rights violations and abuses. A conducive environment also requires an end to violent conflict and the massive insecurity that it entails for the country. Victims and witnesses should be able to engage with transitional justice mechanisms and speak without fear or threat of reprisal. Given the ongoing conflict, the growing insecurity and the large-scale polarization of communities, the conditions do not augur well for the establishment of any effective transitional justice mechanism. 60. The commitment of the Transitional Government of National Unity to criminal liability is also a matter of great concern in the light of the blanket amnesties often granted in the past for crimes committed during the conflict; for example, in February 2015, President Kiir issued an order granting amnesty to all those “waging war against the State”, with no limitations with regard to allegations of crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide. The President also granted an amnesty to the South Sudan National Liberation Movement/Army in Gbudue and Maridi States15 in an agreement signed on 2 April 2016. On 16 November, the President again announced an amnesty for the 750 SPLM/A in Opposition soldiers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo who were willing to return. The people who currently occupy leadership positions in the Transitional Government are the same who, under the terms of the peace agreement, should be brought to trial before the hybrid court. International law prohibits amnesties in the case of serious crimes. The President is therefore fuelling impunity by offering amnesty. 61. Nearly 60 per cent of South Sudanese respondents interviewed in the survey conducted in 2014/15 (see para. 57 above) opposed the offer and granting of amnesties to encourage the warring parties to adhere to the terms of a political settlement.16 Forty-eight percent of respondents would not support an amnesty even if it were necessary for peace. A. Hybrid court for South Sudan 62. The Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan provides for the establishment of a hybrid court for South Sudan to “investigate and prosecute individuals bearing criminal responsibility for violations of international law and/or applicable South Sudanese law committed between 15 December 2013 and the end of the transitional period”. In September 2015, the African Union Peace and Security Council authorized the African Union Commission to establish a hybrid court for South Sudan. 14 15 16 South Sudan Law Society, Search for a New Beginning: Perceptions of Truth, Justice, Reconciliation and Healing in South Sudan, June 2015. New States created pursuant to establishment order No. 36/2015. Ibid. 13