International experience therefore suggests that reconciliation processes can provide a greater sense of satisfaction to both the accused and the victims than approaches that rely on only one form of redress. By combining accountability with truth-telling and acknowledgment, reconciliation offers a more balanced path toward addressing the legacy of past abuses.

On the one hand, individuals who did not commit criminal offenses but whose conduct remains controversial could be brought under a structured system of alternative sanctions. On the other hand, many activists and supporters of the accused political party who did not benefit from the previous regime could be spared years of harassment and legal uncertainty. Even those who are accused of having benefited unfairly would know precisely what they are alleged to have done and what consequences they face. Rather than living indefinitely with fear and uncertainty, a clearly defined formal process would likely be preferable for all concerned.

It is important to remember that supporting a political party is not, in itself, a crime for members of the professions. However, receiving improper benefits or failing to take action against wrongdoing committed by that party is often difficult to establish as a criminal offense under existing legal frameworks. Even where criminal liability cannot be proven, commissions of this kind can promote accountability through vetting or lustration. Such mechanisms can help institutionalize accountability not only for a single administration but also for successive governments, fostering a lasting culture of public responsibility.