credible trials for the crimes defined therein (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes). 20. The fact is that, in the specific context of processes of widespread violence and noninternational armed conflicts, amnesties may lead, at least in theory and according to the specific case or circumstance, in different directions. Consequently, this creates a whole range of possible outcomes that can delimit the exercise of assessing the interests at stake in order to combine the aim of investigating, punishing, and repairing gross human rights violations, on the one hand, with that of national reconciliation and a negotiated solution to a non-international armed conflict, on the other. There is no universally applicable solution to the dilemmas posed by these opposing forces, because it depends on the specific context, although there are guidelines that must be taken into account. 21. Based on international human rights law and, particularly the American Convention, some fundamental criteria can be outlined in order to deal with these opposing forces, which are basically justice and reconciliation. 22. A first and obvious starting point is that the anomalous and exceptional situation of a non-international armed conflict signifies that there are many thousands of violent offenders and, above all, victims. This exceptional situation usually requires exceptional mechanisms of response. The crucial element is to develop a method of assessment that deals, to the greatest extent possible, with this tension between justice and the ending of the conflict. To this end, several components must be taken into consideration, both judicial and non-judicial, that are focused, simultaneously, on seeking the truth, justice and reparation. This is because the demands that arise from massive violations, the responses to the aftermath of the conflict, and the search for long-lasting peace, require both the States and society as a whole to apply concurrent measures that permit the greatest simultaneous attention to these three rights. 23. In this context, the rights of the victims to truth, justice and reparation must be understood as interdependent. Only the integrated application of measures in favor of victims in all these areas can achieve results that are effective and consistent with the inter-American human rights system. Thus, the simple application of criminal sanctions, without these implying a serious effort to find and report the whole truth, could become a bureaucratic process that does not satisfy the valid objective of the victims to obtain the greatest possible truth. Furthermore, the award of reparations without knowledge of the truth about the violations that occurred, and without establishing conditions for a lasting peace, would only produce an apparent relief for the victims, but not a change in the conditions that would permit a recurrence of the violations. 24. These fundamental components can serve, in whole or in part, in the design of procedures that are suitable for the specificity of a process of negotiated solution to a non-international armed conflict. This, within a perspective in which the greater or lesser severity of the facts can make a specific processing of the facts viable – or not. Thus, for example, facts that can be categorized as war crimes or crimes against humanity in the definitions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court should merit being processed specifically and with priority, and this is not necessarily the same for the other crimes or human rights violations. 25. As for the truth component, in addition to the essential issue of the “judicial truth,” which I discuss below in relation to the element of justice, on many occasions, this has led to the implementation of mechanisms such as truth commissions. However, the concept of “truth” is not unique and opens the door to different interpretations. Alex 5