These refinements, from Guti´errez, Assmann and Comblin, demon- strate the capacity of Liberation Theology at its best to be self- reflective and self-correcting. What the preceding sections have at- tempted to argue is that a framing of liberationist concerns within the context of a particular theme from political philosophy – namely, the ‘State of Exception’ and its paradoxical relation to the politi- cal order – may help to contextualise the real or alleged aporias of Liberation Theology. It helps us to recognise, for example, a per- fectly understandable decline in effective engagement as countries across the Latin American continent returned to varying degrees of democratic and civil normality. A theology which is grounded on the non-person, the victim, will inevitably feature less prominently in a ‘normalised’ context. The complex reality of transitional justice is a classic example, where the rights of victims and their families have to be balanced against other goods: truth, reconciliation, a deepening and consolidation of democratic institutions and processes – all of which may involve amnesties and compromises that, of necessity, ‘marginalise’ the voice of the victim once again.