The war that has plagued Sudan since April 2023 has been marked by significant violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Civilians are bearing the brunt of the violence. Consequently, calls for accountability and justice are high on the agenda of Sudanese civil society. In the past, conflicts in Sudan have either ended with a blanked amnesty for the perpetrators of crimes, however, or initial commitments to transitional justice have not been implemented. At the same time, the current war underlines the deep costs of this impunity. Because armed actors responsible for mass atrocities already two decades ago were not held accountable, they have been able to consolidate their power. This then led to the rivalry in the security sector at the heart of the current conflict. This brief argues for a way to overcome the seeming dichotomy between blanket amnesty and criminal accountability. Using examples from South Africa, Uganda and Sierra Leone, it shows how conditional amnesty provisions can prove effective in ensuring peace and justice. It argues that conditional amnesty does not need to prevent all prosecutions. A hybrid court with national and international elements can play an important role in this regard.