Among the examples of the guardian's sovereignty over a person is the power to pardon after the start of the retribution operation; jurisprudence and law consider this power permissible and believe in the absolute sovereignty of the guardian until the moment of the execution of the soul. In contrast, some other jurists and lawyers believe in the need to limit the authority of the guardian in exercising the right of retribution and consider this sovereignty valid until the moment of the final decision, not after the start of the retribution operation. In this study, which was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method, the following results have been obtained: pardon after the start of the retribution operation, comes with serious challenges, including being inconsistent with the principle of benevolence and non-harm, creating doubts about true pardon or pretending to take revenge (pardon accompanied by persecution and torture), the guardian's lack of guarantee against the mental and physical harm inflicted on the person, the negative reflection of this action in society, and so on.Therefore, amnesty in this context can not only become a tool to justify violence, but also lead to new moral and legal crises