The findings presented in the previous chapter demonstrate the Committee's generosity in its application of the political offence requirement. Nearly 90 per cent of bona fide amnesty applications succeed, irrespective of the very serious nature of many of the deeds concerned. Statistically, it makes no perceptible difference for the outcome of amnesty applications whether the applicants acted on orders or whether they used their own initiative and discretion. There are even cases where the Committee is prepared to accept amnesty applications by applicants who wilfully stepped outside their organisation's policies or beyond the confines of their internal organisational mandate. At the same time, it is clear that the Committee does not merely rubber-stamp applications by persons who acted in their capacity as members or supporters of political organisations, or as state employees. Not only does the need for full disclosure constitute a real hurdle for applicants whose deeds might otherwise qualify for amnesty, but some deeds are considered ineligible for amnesty despite their obvious political background. Information-related reasons play a role in only 41.1% of rejected amnesty applications. Almost 60% of rejected applications fail because the applicant's activities themselves did not pass muster, either because of his motive or because of some feature of his act.

This chapter strives to understand the Committee's notion of the political offence requirement in the light of these findings.