ILFP 2015 — Study Materials (Part II) - United...

38

Transcript of ILFP 2015 — Study Materials (Part II) - United...

THE LAW OF TREATIES

PROFESSOR PIERRE BODEAU-LIVINEC

Outline 9

REQUIRED READINGS (printed format)

Legal instruments and documents

1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969

For text, see The Work of the International Law Commission, 8th ed., vol. II, United

Nations Publication, 2012, p. 116

2. Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, 2011 (without commentaries)

For text, see The Work of the International Law Commission, 8th ed., vol. II, p. 452

3. United Nations Depositary Notifications concerning the accession of the State of

Palestine to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: C.N.13.2015,

C.N.57.2015, C.N.63.2015, C.N.64.2015, C.N.103.2015, C.N.120.2015, C.N.125.2015

12

4. Situation in Palestine, International Criminal Court, Office the Prosecutor, Decision of

3 April 2012

18

Case law

5. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia

(South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council resolution 276 (1970), Advisory

Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, paras. 19-22

20

6. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997,

paras. 92-115

22

7. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria:

Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, paras. 195-199, 247-

268

30

8. Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal),

Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, paras. 71-117

36

7

LAW OF TREATIES – SELECTED ISSUES

Outline

1. The Making of Treaties

The capacity to conclude treaties The Cameroon-Nigeria Case (2002)

Formulating Reservations to treaties The Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties (ILC, 2011), a brief

overview

2. The Life of Treaties

Treaty Interpretation The Namibia Advisory Opinion (1971)

Treaty Implementation The Belgium-Senegal Case (2012)

3. The End of Treaties

Causes for Suspension or Termination of Treaties The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case

9

United Nations Depositary Notifications concerning the accession of the State of Palestine to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:

C.N.13.2015, C.N.57.2015, C.N.63.2015, C.N.64.2015, C.N.103.2015, C.N.120.2015, C.N.125.2015

Atte

ntio

n: T

reat

y Se

rvic

es o

f M

inis

tries

of

Fore

ign

Aff

airs

and

of

inte

rnat

iona

l or

gani

zatio

ns

conc

erne

d.

Dep

osita

ry n

otifi

catio

ns a

re is

sued

in e

lect

roni

c fo

rmat

onl

y.

Dep

osita

ry n

otifi

catio

ns a

re

mad

e av

aila

ble

to t

he P

erm

anen

t M

issi

ons

to t

he U

nite

d N

atio

ns i

n th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns T

reat

y C

olle

ctio

n on

the

Inte

rnet

at h

ttps:

//tre

atie

s.un.

org,

und

er "

Dep

osita

ry N

otifi

catio

ns (C

Ns)

". I

n ad

ditio

n,

the

Perm

anen

t M

issi

ons,

as w

ell

as o

ther

int

eres

ted

indi

vidu

als,

can

subs

crib

e to

rec

eive

dep

osita

ry

notif

icat

ions

by

e-m

ail t

hrou

gh th

e Tr

eaty

Sec

tion'

s "A

utom

ated

Sub

scrip

tion

Serv

ices

", w

hich

is a

lso

avai

labl

e at

http

s://t

reat

ies.u

n.or

g.

Ref

eren

ce: C

.N.1

3.20

15.T

REA

TIES

-XV

III.1

0 (D

epos

itary

Not

ifica

tion)

RO

ME

STA

TUTE

OF

THE

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL

CR

IMIN

AL

CO

UR

TR

OM

E, 1

7 JU

LY 1

998

STA

TE O

F PA

LEST

INE:

AC

CES

SIO

N

The

Secr

etar

y-G

ener

al o

f the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

, act

ing

in h

is c

apac

ity a

s dep

osita

ry,

com

mun

icat

es th

e fo

llow

ing:

The

abov

e ac

tion

was

eff

ecte

d on

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15.

The

Stat

ute

will

ent

er in

to fo

rce

for t

he S

tate

of P

ales

tine

on 1

Apr

il 20

15 in

acc

orda

nce

with

its

arti

cle

126

(2) w

hich

read

s as f

ollo

ws:

“For

eac

h St

ate

ratif

ying

, acc

eptin

g, a

ppro

ving

or a

cced

ing

to th

is S

tatu

te a

fter t

he d

epos

it of

th

e 60

th in

stru

men

t of r

atifi

catio

n, a

ccep

tanc

e, a

ppro

val o

r acc

essi

on, t

he S

tatu

te sh

all e

nter

into

fo

rce

on th

e fir

st d

ay o

f the

mon

th a

fter t

he 6

0th

day

follo

win

g th

e de

posi

t by

such

Sta

te o

f its

in

stru

men

t of r

atifi

catio

n, a

ccep

tanc

e, a

ppro

val o

r acc

essi

on.”

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

Atte

ntio

n: T

reat

y Se

rvic

es o

f M

inis

tries

of

Fore

ign

Aff

airs

and

of

inte

rnat

iona

l or

gani

zatio

ns

conc

erne

d.

Dep

osita

ry n

otifi

catio

ns a

re is

sued

in e

lect

roni

c fo

rmat

onl

y. D

epos

itary

not

ifica

tions

are

m

ade

avai

labl

e to

the

Per

man

ent

Mis

sion

s to

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

in

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

Tre

aty

Col

lect

ion

on th

e In

tern

et a

t http

s://t

reat

ies.u

n.or

g, u

nder

"D

epos

itary

Not

ifica

tions

(CN

s)".

In

addi

tion,

th

e Pe

rman

ent

Mis

sion

s, as

wel

l as

oth

er i

nter

este

d in

divi

dual

s, ca

n su

bscr

ibe

to r

ecei

ve d

epos

itary

no

tific

atio

ns b

y e-

mai

l thr

ough

the

Trea

ty S

ectio

n's

"Aut

omat

ed S

ubsc

riptio

n Se

rvic

es",

whi

ch is

als

o av

aila

ble

at h

ttps:

//tre

atie

s.un.

org.

Ref

eren

ce: C

.N.5

7.20

15.T

REA

TIES

-XV

III.1

0 (D

epos

itary

Not

ifica

tion)

RO

ME

STA

TUTE

OF

THE

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL

CR

IMIN

AL

CO

UR

TR

OM

E, 1

7 JU

LY 1

998

CA

NA

DA

: CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N 1

The

Secr

etar

y-G

ener

al o

f the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

, act

ing

in h

is c

apac

ity a

s dep

osita

ry, c

omm

unic

ates

the

follo

win

g:

The

abov

e ac

tion

was

eff

ecte

d on

16

Janu

ary

2015

.

(Orig

inal

: Eng

lish)

“The

Per

man

ent M

issi

on o

f Can

ada

to th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns p

rese

nts i

ts c

ompl

imen

ts to

the

Secr

etar

y-G

ener

al o

f the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

and

has

the

hono

ur to

refe

r to

the

Rom

e St

atut

e of

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l Crim

inal

Cou

rt an

d th

e Se

cret

ary-

Gen

eral

's co

mm

unic

atio

n of

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

15,

C.N

.13.

2015

.TR

EATI

ES-X

VII

I.10,

rela

ting

to th

at tr

eaty

. The

Per

man

ent M

issi

on o

f Can

ada

note

s th

at th

is c

omm

unic

atio

n w

as m

ade

purs

uant

to th

e Se

cret

ary-

Gen

eral

's ca

paci

ty a

s Dep

osita

ry fo

r th

e R

ome

Stat

ute

of th

e In

tern

atio

nal C

rimin

al C

ourt.

The

Per

man

ent M

issi

on o

f Can

ada

note

s the

te

chni

cal a

nd a

dmin

istra

tive

role

of t

he D

epos

itary

, and

that

it is

for S

tate

s Par

ties t

o a

treat

y, n

ot

the

Dep

osita

ry, t

o m

ake

thei

r ow

n de

term

inat

ion

with

resp

ect t

o an

y le

gal i

ssue

s rai

sed

by

inst

rum

ents

circ

ulat

ed b

y a

depo

sita

ry.

In th

at c

onte

xt, t

he P

erm

anen

t Mis

sion

of C

anad

a no

tes t

hat '

Pale

stin

e' do

es n

ot m

eet t

he

crite

ria o

f a st

ate

unde

r int

erna

tiona

l law

and

is n

ot re

cogn

ized

by

Can

ada

as a

stat

e. T

here

fore

, in

orde

r to

avoi

d co

nfus

ion,

the

Perm

anen

t Mis

sion

of C

anad

a w

ishe

s to

note

its p

ositi

on th

at in

the

cont

ext o

f the

pur

porte

d Pa

lest

inia

n ac

cess

ion

to th

e R

ome

Stat

ute

of th

e In

tern

atio

nal C

rimin

al

Cou

rt, 'P

ales

tine'

is n

ot a

ble

to a

cced

e to

this

con

vent

ion,

and

that

the

Rom

e St

atut

e of

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l Crim

inal

Cou

rt do

es n

ot e

nter

into

forc

e, o

r hav

e an

eff

ect o

n C

anad

a’s t

reat

y re

latio

ns, w

ith re

spec

t to

the

'Sta

te o

f Pal

estin

e'.”

23 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

____

____ 1 R

efer

to d

epos

itary

not

ifica

tion

C.N

.13.

2015

.TR

EATI

ES-X

VII

I.10

of 6

Janu

ary

2015

(A

cces

sion

: Sta

te o

f Pal

estin

e).

12

Atte

ntio

n: T

reat

y Se

rvic

es o

f M

inis

tries

of

Fore

ign

Aff

airs

and

of

inte

rnat

iona

l or

gani

zatio

ns

conc

erne

d.

Dep

osita

ry n

otifi

catio

ns a

re is

sued

in e

lect

roni

c fo

rmat

onl

y.

Dep

osita

ry n

otifi

catio

ns a

re

mad

e av

aila

ble

to t

he P

erm

anen

t M

issi

ons

to t

he U

nite

d N

atio

ns i

n th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns T

reat

y C

olle

ctio

n on

the

Inte

rnet

at h

ttps:

//tre

atie

s.un.

org,

und

er "

Dep

osita

ry N

otifi

catio

ns (C

Ns)

". I

n ad

ditio

n,

the

Perm

anen

t M

issi

ons,

as w

ell

as o

ther

int

eres

ted

indi

vidu

als,

can

subs

crib

e to

rec

eive

dep

osita

ry

notif

icat

ions

by

e-m

ail t

hrou

gh th

e Tr

eaty

Sec

tion'

s "A

utom

ated

Sub

scrip

tion

Serv

ices

", w

hich

is a

lso

avai

labl

e at

http

s://t

reat

ies.u

n.or

g.

Ref

eren

ce: C

.N.6

3.20

15.T

REA

TIES

-XV

III.1

0 (D

epos

itary

Not

ifica

tion)

RO

ME

STA

TUTE

OF

THE

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL

CR

IMIN

AL

CO

UR

TR

OM

E, 1

7 JU

LY 1

998

ISR

AEL

: CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N 1

The

Secr

etar

y-G

ener

al o

f the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

, act

ing

in h

is c

apac

ity a

s dep

osita

ry,

com

mun

icat

es th

e fo

llow

ing:

The

abov

e ac

tion

was

eff

ecte

d on

16

Janu

ary

2015

.

(Orig

inal

: Eng

lish)

“The

Per

man

ent M

issi

on o

f Isr

ael t

o th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns p

rese

nts i

ts c

ompl

imen

ts to

the

Secr

etar

y-G

ener

al o

f the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

, in

his c

apac

ity a

s dep

osita

ry to

the

Rom

e St

atut

e of

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l Crim

inal

Cou

rt, a

nd re

fers

to th

e co

mm

unic

atio

n by

the

depo

sita

ry, d

ated

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

15,

rega

rdin

g th

e Pa

lest

inia

n re

ques

t to

acce

de to

this

Sta

tute

(Ref

eren

ce n

umbe

r C.N

.13.

2015

.TR

EATI

ES-

XV

III.1

0). 'Pal

estin

e' do

es n

ot sa

tisfy

the

crite

ria fo

r sta

teho

od u

nder

inte

rnat

iona

l law

and

lack

s the

lega

l ca

paci

ty to

join

the

afor

esai

d St

atut

e un

der g

ener

al in

tern

atio

nal l

aw, a

s wel

l as u

nder

the

term

s of t

he

Rom

e St

atut

e an

d of

bila

tera

l Isr

aeli-

Pale

stin

ian

agre

emen

ts.

The

Gov

ernm

ent o

f Isr

ael d

oes n

ot re

cogn

ize

'Pal

estin

e' as

a S

tate

, and

wis

hes t

o pl

ace

on

reco

rd, f

or th

e sa

ke o

f cla

rity,

its p

ositi

on th

at it

doe

s not

con

side

r 'Pa

lest

ine'

a pa

rty to

the

Stat

ute

and

rega

rds t

he P

ales

tinia

n re

ques

t for

acc

essi

on a

s bei

ng w

ithou

t any

lega

l val

idity

or e

ffec

t.” 23 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

____

____ 1 R

efer

to d

epos

itary

not

ifica

tion

C.N

.13.

2015

.TR

EATI

ES-X

VII

I.10

of 6

Janu

ary

2015

(A

cces

sion

: Sta

te o

f Pal

estin

e).

Atte

ntio

n: T

reat

y Se

rvic

es o

f M

inis

tries

of

Fore

ign

Aff

airs

and

of

inte

rnat

iona

l or

gani

zatio

ns

conc

erne

d.

Dep

osita

ry n

otifi

catio

ns a

re is

sued

in e

lect

roni

c fo

rmat

onl

y. D

epos

itary

not

ifica

tions

are

m

ade

avai

labl

e to

the

Per

man

ent

Mis

sion

s to

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

in

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

Tre

aty

Col

lect

ion

on th

e In

tern

et a

t http

s://t

reat

ies.u

n.or

g, u

nder

"D

epos

itary

Not

ifica

tions

(CN

s)".

In

addi

tion,

th

e Pe

rman

ent

Mis

sion

s, as

wel

l as

oth

er i

nter

este

d in

divi

dual

s, ca

n su

bscr

ibe

to r

ecei

ve d

epos

itary

no

tific

atio

ns b

y e-

mai

l thr

ough

the

Trea

ty S

ectio

n's

"Aut

omat

ed S

ubsc

riptio

n Se

rvic

es",

whi

ch is

als

o av

aila

ble

at h

ttps:

//tre

atie

s.un.

org.

Ref

eren

ce: C

.N.6

4.20

15.T

REA

TIES

-XV

III.1

0 (D

epos

itary

Not

ifica

tion)

RO

ME

STA

TUTE

OF

THE

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL

CR

IMIN

AL

CO

UR

TR

OM

E, 1

7 JU

LY 1

998

UN

ITED

STA

TES

OF

AM

ERIC

A: C

OM

MU

NIC

ATI

ON

1

The

Secr

etar

y-G

ener

al o

f the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

, act

ing

in h

is c

apac

ity a

s dep

osita

ry,

com

mun

icat

es th

e fo

llow

ing:

The

abov

e ac

tion

was

eff

ecte

d on

16

Janu

ary

2015

.

(Orig

inal

: Eng

lish)

“The

Uni

ted

Stat

es M

issi

on to

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

pre

sent

s its

com

plim

ents

to th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns a

nd re

fers

to th

e U

.N. S

ecre

tary

-Gen

eral

's de

posi

tary

not

ifica

tion

C.N

.13.

2015

.TR

EATI

ES-

XV

III.1

0, d

ated

Janu

ary

6, 2

015,

rega

rdin

g th

e pu

rpor

ted

acce

ssio

n of

the

‘Sta

te o

f Pal

estin

e’ to

the

Rom

e St

atut

e of

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l Crim

inal

Cou

rt, d

one

at R

ome

July

17,

199

8 (th

e R

ome

Stat

ute)

.

The

Gov

ernm

ent o

f the

Uni

ted

Stat

es o

f Am

eric

a do

es n

ot b

elie

ve th

e ‘S

tate

of P

ales

tine’

qu

alifi

es a

s a so

vere

ign

Stat

e an

d do

es n

ot re

cogn

ize

it as

such

. Acc

essi

on to

the

Rom

e St

atut

e is

lim

ited

to so

vere

ign

Stat

es. T

here

fore

, the

Gov

ernm

ent o

f the

Uni

ted

Stat

es o

f Am

eric

a be

lieve

s tha

t the

‘S

tate

of P

ales

tine’

is n

ot q

ualif

ied

to a

cced

e to

the

Rom

e St

atut

e.”

23 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

____

____ 1 R

efer

to d

epos

itary

not

ifica

tion

C.N

.13.

2015

.TR

EATI

ES-X

VII

I.10

of 6

Janu

ary

2015

(A

cces

sion

: Sta

te o

f Pal

estin

e).

13

Atte

ntio

n: T

reat

y Se

rvic

es o

f M

inis

tries

of

Fore

ign

Aff

airs

and

of

inte

rnat

iona

l or

gani

zatio

ns

conc

erne

d.

Dep

osita

ry n

otifi

catio

ns a

re is

sued

in e

lect

roni

c fo

rmat

onl

y. D

epos

itary

not

ifica

tions

are

m

ade

avai

labl

e to

the

Per

man

ent

Mis

sion

s to

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

in

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

Tre

aty

Col

lect

ion

on th

e In

tern

et a

t http

s://t

reat

ies.u

n.or

g, u

nder

"D

epos

itary

Not

ifica

tions

(CN

s)".

In

addi

tion,

th

e Pe

rman

ent

Mis

sion

s, as

wel

l as

oth

er i

nter

este

d in

divi

dual

s, ca

n su

bscr

ibe

to r

ecei

ve d

epos

itary

no

tific

atio

ns b

y e-

mai

l thr

ough

the

Trea

ty S

ectio

n's

"Aut

omat

ed S

ubsc

riptio

n Se

rvic

es",

whi

ch is

als

o av

aila

ble

at h

ttps:

//tre

atie

s.un.

org.

Ref

eren

ce: C

.N.1

03.2

015.

TREA

TIES

-XV

III.1

0 (D

epos

itary

Not

ifica

tion)

RO

ME

STA

TUTE

OF

THE

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL

CR

IMIN

AL

CO

UR

TR

OM

E, 1

7 JU

LY 1

998

STA

TE O

F PA

LEST

INE:

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N 1

The

Secr

etar

y-G

ener

al o

f the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

, act

ing

in h

is c

apac

ity a

s dep

osita

ry,

com

mun

icat

es th

e fo

llow

ing:

The

abov

e ac

tion

was

eff

ecte

d on

6 F

ebru

ary

2015

.

(Orig

inal

: Eng

lish)

“The

Per

man

ent O

bser

ver o

f the

Sta

te o

f Pal

estin

e to

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

pre

sent

s hi

s co

mpl

imen

ts to

the

Secr

etar

y-G

ener

al o

f the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

, in

his c

apac

ity a

s Dep

osita

ry, a

nd h

as th

e ho

nor t

o re

fer t

o de

posi

tary

not

ifica

tion

C.N

.57.

2015

.TR

EATI

ES-X

VII

I.10,

dat

ed 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15,

conv

eyin

g a

com

mun

icat

ion

of C

anad

a re

gard

ing

the

acce

ssio

n of

the

Stat

e of

Pal

estin

e to

the

Rom

e St

atut

e of

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l Crim

inal

Cou

rt, d

ated

17

July

199

8.

The

Gov

ernm

ent o

f the

Sta

te o

f Pal

estin

e re

gret

s the

pos

ition

of C

anad

a an

d w

ishe

s to

reca

ll U

nite

d N

atio

ns G

ener

al A

ssem

bly

reso

lutio

n 67

/19

of 2

9 N

ovem

ber 2

012

acco

rdin

g Pa

lest

ine

‘non

- m

embe

r obs

erve

r Sta

te st

atus

in th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns’.

In th

is re

gard

, Pal

estin

e is

a S

tate

reco

gniz

ed b

y th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns G

ener

al A

ssem

bly

on b

ehal

f of t

he in

tern

atio

nal c

omm

unity

.

As a

Sta

te P

arty

to th

e R

ome

Stat

ute

of th

e In

tern

atio

nal C

rimin

al C

ourt,

whi

ch e

nter

s int

o fo

rce

on 1

Apr

il 20

15, t

he S

tate

of P

ales

tine

will

exe

rcis

e its

righ

ts a

nd h

onor

its o

blig

atio

ns w

ith

resp

ect t

o al

l Sta

tes P

artie

s. Th

e St

ate

of P

ales

tine

trust

s tha

t its

righ

ts a

nd o

blig

atio

ns w

ill b

e eq

ually

re

spec

ted

by it

s fel

low

Sta

tes P

artie

s.”

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

____

____ 1 R

efer

to d

epos

itary

not

ifica

tion

C.N

.57.

2015

.TR

EATI

ES-X

VII

I.10

of 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

(Com

mun

icat

ion:

Can

ada)

.

Atte

ntio

n: T

reat

y Se

rvic

es o

f M

inis

tries

of

Fore

ign

Aff

airs

and

of

inte

rnat

iona

l or

gani

zatio

ns

conc

erne

d.

Dep

osita

ry n

otifi

catio

ns a

re is

sued

in e

lect

roni

c fo

rmat

onl

y.

Dep

osita

ry n

otifi

catio

ns a

re

mad

e av

aila

ble

to t

he P

erm

anen

t M

issi

ons

to t

he U

nite

d N

atio

ns i

n th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns T

reat

y C

olle

ctio

n on

the

Inte

rnet

at h

ttps:

//tre

atie

s.un.

org,

und

er "

Dep

osita

ry N

otifi

catio

ns (C

Ns)

". I

n ad

ditio

n,

the

Perm

anen

t M

issi

ons,

as w

ell

as o

ther

int

eres

ted

indi

vidu

als,

can

subs

crib

e to

rec

eive

dep

osita

ry

notif

icat

ions

by

e-m

ail t

hrou

gh th

e Tr

eaty

Sec

tion'

s "A

utom

ated

Sub

scrip

tion

Serv

ices

", w

hich

is a

lso

avai

labl

e at

http

s://t

reat

ies.u

n.or

g.

Ref

eren

ce: C

.N.1

03.0

312.

TR5A

TI5S

-EX

III.1

3 (D

epos

itary

Not

ifica

tion)

RV

M5

STA

TUT5

VF

TO5

INT5

RN

ATI

VN

AH

CR

IMIN

AH

CV

UR

TR

VM

5, 1

L 7U

HJ 1

YY9

STA

T5 V

F PA

H5ST

IN5:

CV

MM

UN

ICA

TIV

N 1

The

Secr

etar

y-8

ener

al o

f the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

, act

ing

in h

is c

apac

ity a

s dep

osita

ry,

com

mun

icat

es th

e fo

llow

ing:

The

abov

e ac

tion

was

eff

ecte

d on

G F

ebru

ary

0312

.

(Vrig

inal

: 5ng

lish)

6The

Per

man

ent V

bser

ver o

f the

Sta

te o

f Pal

estin

e to

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

pre

sent

s hi

s co

mpl

imen

ts to

the

Secr

etar

y-8

ener

al o

f the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

, in

his c

apac

ity a

s Dep

osita

ry, a

nd h

as th

e ho

nor t

o re

fer t

o de

posi

tary

not

ifica

tion

C.N

.G“.

0312

.TR

5ATI

5S-E

XII

I.13,

dat

ed 0

“ 7a

nuar

y 03

12,

conv

eyin

g a

com

mun

icat

ion

of Is

rael

rega

rdin

g th

e ac

cess

ion

of th

e St

ate

of P

ales

tine

to th

e R

ome

Stat

ute

of th

e In

tern

atio

nal C

rimin

al C

ourt,

dat

ed 1

L 7u

ly 1

YY9.

The

8ov

ernm

ent o

f the

Sta

te o

f Pal

estin

e re

gret

s the

pos

ition

of I

srae

l, th

e oc

cupy

ing

Pow

er,

and

wis

hes t

o re

call

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

8en

eral

Ass

embl

y re

solu

tion

GL/1

Y of

0Y

Nov

embe

r 031

0 ac

cord

ing

Pale

stin

e ‘n

on-m

embe

r obs

erve

r Sta

te st

atus

in th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns’.

In th

is re

gard

, Pal

estin

e is

a S

tate

reco

gniz

ed b

y th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns 8

ener

al A

ssem

bly

on b

ehal

f of t

he in

tern

atio

nal

com

mun

ity.

As a

Sta

te P

arty

to th

e R

ome

Stat

ute

of th

e In

tern

atio

nal C

rimin

al C

ourt,

whi

ch e

nter

s int

o fo

rce

on 1

Apr

il 03

12, t

he S

tate

of P

ales

tine

will

exe

rcis

e its

righ

ts a

nd h

onor

its o

blig

atio

ns w

ith

resp

ect t

o al

l Sta

tes P

artie

s. Th

e St

ate

of P

ales

tine

trust

s tha

t its

righ

ts a

nd o

blig

atio

ns w

ill b

e eq

ually

re

spec

ted

by it

s fel

low

Sta

tes P

artie

s.”

Y Fe

brua

ry 0

312

____

____ 1 R

efer

to d

epos

itary

not

ifica

tion

C.N

.G“.

0312

.TR

5ATI

5S-E

XII

I.13

of 0

“ 7a

nuar

y 03

12

(Com

mun

icat

ion:

Isra

el).

14

Atte

ntio

n: T

reat

y Se

rvic

es o

f M

inis

tries

of

Fore

ign

Aff

airs

and

of

inte

rnat

iona

l or

gani

zatio

ns

conc

erne

d.

Dep

osita

ry n

otifi

catio

ns a

re is

sued

in e

lect

roni

c fo

rmat

onl

y. D

epos

itary

not

ifica

tions

are

m

ade

avai

labl

e to

the

Per

man

ent

Mis

sion

s to

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

in

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

Tre

aty

Col

lect

ion

on th

e In

tern

et a

t http

s://t

reat

ies.u

n.or

g, u

nder

"D

epos

itary

Not

ifica

tions

(CN

s)".

In

addi

tion,

th

e Pe

rman

ent

Mis

sion

s, as

wel

l as

oth

er i

nter

este

d in

divi

dual

s, ca

n su

bscr

ibe

to r

ecei

ve d

epos

itary

no

tific

atio

ns b

y e-

mai

l thr

ough

the

Trea

ty S

ectio

n's

"Aut

omat

ed S

ubsc

riptio

n Se

rvic

es",

whi

ch is

als

o av

aila

ble

at h

ttps:

//tre

atie

s.un.

org.

Ref

eren

ce: C

.N.1

25.2

015.

TREA

TIES

-XV

III.1

0 (D

epos

itary

Not

ifica

tion)

RO

ME

STA

TUTE

OF

THE

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL

CR

IMIN

AL

CO

UR

TR

OM

E, 1

7 JU

LY 1

998

STA

TE O

F PA

LEST

INE:

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N 1

The

Secr

etar

y-G

ener

al o

f the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

, act

ing

in h

is c

apac

ity a

s dep

osita

ry,

com

mun

icat

es th

e fo

llow

ing:

The

abov

e ac

tion

was

eff

ecte

d on

6 F

ebru

ary

2015

.

(Orig

inal

: Eng

lish)

“The

Per

man

ent O

bser

ver o

f the

Sta

te o

f Pal

estin

e to

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

pre

sent

s hi

s co

mpl

imen

ts to

the

Secr

etar

y-G

ener

al o

f the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

, in

his c

apac

ity a

s Dep

osita

ry, a

nd h

as th

e ho

nor t

o re

fer t

o de

posi

tary

not

ifica

tion

C.N

.64.

2015

.TR

EATI

ES-X

VII

I.10,

dat

ed 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15,

conv

eyin

g a

com

mun

icat

ion

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

of A

mer

ica

rega

rdin

g th

e ac

cess

ion

of th

e St

ate

of

Pale

stin

e to

the

Rom

e St

atut

e of

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l Crim

inal

Cou

rt, d

ated

17

July

199

8.

The

Gov

ernm

ent o

f the

Sta

te o

f Pal

estin

e re

gret

s the

pos

ition

of t

he U

nite

d St

ates

of A

mer

ica

and

wis

hes t

o re

call

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

Gen

eral

Ass

embl

y re

solu

tion

67/1

9 of

29

Nov

embe

r 201

2 ac

cord

ing

Pale

stin

e ‘n

on-m

embe

r obs

erve

r Sta

te st

atus

in th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns’.

In th

is re

gard

, Pal

estin

e is

a S

tate

reco

gniz

ed b

y th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns G

ener

al A

ssem

bly

on b

ehal

f of t

he in

tern

atio

nal

com

mun

ity.

As a

Sta

te P

arty

to th

e R

ome

Stat

ute

of th

e In

tern

atio

nal C

rimin

al C

ourt,

whi

ch e

nter

s int

o fo

rce

on 1

Apr

il 20

15, t

he S

tate

of P

ales

tine

will

exe

rcis

e its

righ

ts a

nd h

onor

its o

blig

atio

ns w

ith

resp

ect t

o al

l Sta

tes P

artie

s. Th

e St

ate

of P

ales

tine

trust

s tha

t its

righ

ts a

nd o

blig

atio

ns w

ill b

e eq

ually

re

spec

ted

by it

s fel

low

Sta

tes P

artie

s.”

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

____

____ 1 R

efer

to d

epos

itary

not

ifica

tion

C.N

.64.

2015

.TR

EATI

ES-X

VII

I.10

of 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

(Com

mun

icat

ion:

Uni

ted

Stat

es o

f Am

eric

a).

15

Situation in Palestine, Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court,

Decision of 3 April 2012

LeBureauduPro

cureur

TheOfficeofthePro

secu

tor

SituationinPalestine

1.On22

January20

09,pursuan

tto

article12

(3)oftheRomeStatute,AliKhash

anactingas

MinisterofJusticeoftheGovernmen

tofPalestinelodged

adeclarationacceptingtheexercise

ofjurisd

ictionbytheInternational

Criminal

Court

for“a

ctscommitted

ontheterritory

of

Palestinesince

1July

2002.”

1

2.In

accord

ance

witharticle15

oftheRomeStatute,theOfficeoftheProsecu

torinitiateda

preliminaryexam

inationin

ord

erto

determinewhether

thereisareasonab

lebasisto

proceed

withan

investigation.TheOfficeen

sured

afair

process

bygivingallthose

concerned

the

opportunity

topresenttheirargumen

ts.The

Arab

League’s

Indep

enden

tFactFinding

Committeeon

Gaz

apresented

itsreport

duringavisit

totheCourt.TheOfficeprovided

Palestinewiththeopportunityto

presentitsviewsextensively,in

both

oralan

dwritten

form

.

TheOfficealso

considered

variousreportswithopposingviews.

2In

July

2011,Palestine

confirm

ed

totheOfficethatit

had

submitted

itsprincipalarg

uments,su

bject

tothe

submissionofadditionalsu

pportingdocu

mentation.

3.Thefirststag

ein

anypreliminaryexam

inationis

todeterminewhether

thepreconditions

totheexercise

ofjurisd

ictionunder

article12

oftheRomeStatute

aremet.Only

when

such

criteria

areestablish

edwilltheOfficeproceed

toan

alyse

inform

ationonalleged

crim

esas

wellas

other

conditionsfortheexercise

ofjurisd

ictionas

setoutin

articles

13an

d53

(1).

4.Thejurisd

iction

oftheCourt

isnotbased

on

theprinciple

ofuniversaljurisd

iction:

itrequires

thattheUnited

NationsSecurity

Council(article

13(b))

ora“S

tate”(article

12)

providejurisd

iction.Article

12establish

esthat

a“S

tate”canconferjurisd

ictionto

theCourt

bybecomingaParty

totheRomeStatute

(article

12(1))

orbymak

ingan

adhocdeclaration

acceptingtheCourt’sjurisd

iction(article

12(3)).

5.Theissu

ethat

arises,therefore,is

who

defines

what

isa“S

tate”forthepurpose

of

article12

oftheStatute?In

accord

ance

witharticle12

5,theRomeStatute

isopen

toaccession

by

“all

States”,an

dan

yState

seek

ing

tobecomeaParty

totheStatute

must

dep

ositan

instru

men

tofaccessionwiththeSecretary

Gen

eral

oftheUnited

Nations.In

instan

ceswhere

itis

controversial

orunclearwhether

anap

plicantconstitutesa“S

tate”,

itis

thepracticeof

theSecretary

Gen

eral

tofollow

orseek

theGen

eral

Assem

bly’sdirectives

onthematter.This

isreflected

inGen

eral

Assem

bly

resolutions

which

provide

indications

ofwhether

an

1Thedeclarationca

nbeaccessedat:http://w

ww.icc

cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/74EEE2010FED

448195D4

C8071087102C/279777/20090122PalestinianDeclaration2.pdf

2Forasu

mmary

ofsu

bmissionsseehttp://w

ww.icc

cpi.int/Menus/IC

C/Structure+of+the+Court/O

ffice+of+the+Pro

secu

tor/Comm+and+Ref/Palestine/.

Page:2/2

applicantis

a“S

tate”.

3Thus,

competen

cefordetermining

the

term

“State”

within

the

meaningofarticle12

rests,

inthefirstinstan

ce,withtheUnited

NationsSecretary

Gen

eral

who,in

case

ofdoubt,

willdefer

totheguidan

ceofGen

eral

Assem

bly.TheAssem

bly

of

StatesParties

oftheRomeStatute

could

also

induecoursedecideto

address

thematterin

accord

ance

witharticle11

2(2)(g)oftheStatute.

6.In

interpretingan

dap

plyingarticle12

oftheRomeStatute,theOfficehas

assessed

that

it

isfortherelevan

tbodiesat

theUnited

NationsortheAssem

bly

ofStatesParties

tomak

ethe

legal

determinationwhether

Palestinequalifiesas

aState

forthepurp

ose

ofaccedingto

the

Rome

Statute

and

thereb

yen

abling

the

exercise

of

jurisd

iction

by

the

Court

under

article12

(1).TheRomeStatute

provides

noau

thority

fortheOfficeoftheProsecu

torto

adopt

amethodto

definetheterm

“State”under

article12

(3)whichwould

beat

variance

withthat

establish

edforthepurpose

ofarticle12

(1).

7.TheOfficehas

beeninform

edthat

Palestinehas

beenrecognised

asaState

inbilateral

relationsbymore

than

130governmen

tsan

dbycertaininternational

organ

isations,including

United

Nation

bodies.

Howev

er,the

curren

tstatusgranted

toPalestine

by

the

United

NationsGen

eral

Assem

bly

isthat

of“o

bserver”,

notas

a“N

onmem

ber

State”.

TheOffice

understan

dsthat

on23

Sep

tember

2011

,Palestinesu

bmittedan

applicationforad

missionto

theUnited

Nationsas

aMem

ber

State

inaccord

ance

witharticle4(2)

oftheUnited

Nations

Charter,buttheSecurity

Councilhas

notyet

mad

earecommen

dationin

this

regard.W

hile

thisprocess

has

nodirectlinkwiththedeclarationlodged

byPalestine,itinform

sthecu

rren

t

legal

statusofPalestinefortheinterpretationan

dap

plicationofarticle12

.

8.TheOfficecould

inthefuture

consider

allegationsofcrim

escommitted

inPalestine,

should

competen

torgan

softheUnited

Nationsorev

entuallytheAssem

bly

ofStatesParties

resolvethelegal

issu

erelevan

tto

anassessmen

tofarticle12

orsh

ould

theSecurity

Council,

inaccord

ance

witharticle13

(b),mak

eareferral

providingjurisd

iction.

EMBARGOEDUNTILDELIVERY3April2012

3This

positionis

setoutin

theunderstandingsadoptedbytheGeneralAssembly

atits2202ndplenary

meetingon14December1973;seeSummaryofPracticeoftheSecretaryGeneralasDepositaryofMultilateral

Treaties,

ST/LEG/7/R

ev.1,paras8183;http://untreaty.un.org

/ola

intern

et/Assistance/Summary

.htm

18

International Court of Justice

Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding

Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) Advisory Opinion

I.C.J. Reports 1971, paras. 19-22

20

International Court of Justice

Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)

Judgment

I.C.J. Reports 1997, paras. 92-115

22

23

24

25

26

27

International Court of Justice

Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening)

Judgment

I.C.J. Reports 2002, paras. 195-199, 247-268

30

31

32

33

34

International Court of Justice

Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal)

Judgment

I.C.J. Reports 2012, paras. 71-117

20 J

UIL

LE

T 2

012

AR

T

QU

ES

TIO

NS

CO

NC

ER

NA

NT

L�O

BL

IGA

TIO

N D

E P

OU

RS

UIV

RE

O

U D

�EX

TR

AD

ER

(BE

LG

IQU

E c

. SÉ

GA

L)

____

____

___

QU

ES

TIO

NS

RE

LA

TIN

G T

O T

HE

OB

LIG

AT

ION

TO

PR

OS

EC

UT

E

OR

EX

TR

AD

ITE

(BE

LG

IUMv. S

EN

EG

AL

)

20 J

UL

Y 2

012

JUD

GM

EN

T

- 2

7 -

6

9.

Th

e co

mm

on

in

tere

st i

n c

om

pli

ance

wit

h t

he

rele

van

t o

bli

gat

ion

s u

nd

er t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

agai

nst

To

rtu

re i

mp

lies

th

e en

titl

emen

t o

f ea

ch S

tate

par

ty t

o t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

to

mak

e a

clai

m

conce

rnin

g t

he

cess

atio

n o

f an

all

eged

bre

ach

by

ano

ther

Sta

te p

arty

. I

f a

spec

ial

inte

rest

wer

e

req

uir

ed f

or

that

pu

rpo

se,

in m

any

cas

es n

o S

tate

wo

uld

be

in t

he

po

siti

on

to

mak

e su

ch a

cla

im.

It

foll

ow

s th

at a

ny

Sta

te p

arty

to

th

e C

on

ven

tio

n m

ay i

nv

ok

e th

e re

spo

nsi

bil

ity

of

ano

ther

Sta

te p

arty

wit

h a

vie

w t

o a

scer

tain

ing

th

e al

leg

ed f

ailu

re t

o c

om

ply

wit

h i

ts o

bli

gat

ion

s er

ga

om

nes

pa

rtes

,

such

as

tho

se u

nd

er A

rtic

le 6

, p

arag

rap

h 2

, an

d A

rtic

le 7

, p

arag

rap

h 1

, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tion

, an

d t

o

bri

ng

th

at f

ailu

re t

o a

n e

nd

.

70.

For

thes

e re

ason

s, t

he

Co

urt

co

ncl

ud

es t

hat

Bel

giu

m,

as a

Sta

te p

arty

to

th

e C

on

ven

tio

n

agai

nst

To

rtu

re,

has

sta

nd

ing

to

in

vo

ke

the

resp

on

sib

ilit

y o

f S

eneg

al f

or

the

alle

ged

bre

ach

es o

f it

s

ob

lig

atio

ns

un

der

A

rtic

le 6

, p

arag

rap

h 2

, an

d

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

in

th

e

pre

sent

pro

ceed

ings.

T

her

efo

re,

the

clai

ms

of

Bel

giu

m b

ased

on

th

ese

pro

vis

ion

s ar

e ad

mis

sib

le.

A

s a

con

seq

uen

ce,

ther

e is

no

nee

d f

or

the

Co

urt

to

pro

no

un

ce o

n w

het

her

Bel

giu

m a

lso

has

a sp

ecia

l in

tere

st

wit

h

resp

ect

to

Sen

egal

!s

com

pli

ance

w

ith

th

e re

lev

ant

pro

vis

ion

s o

f th

e

Co

nv

enti

on

in

th

e ca

se o

f M

r. H

abré

.

IV.T

HE

AL

LE

GE

D V

IOL

AT

ION

S O

F T

HE

CO

NV

EN

TIO

N A

GA

INS

T T

OR

TU

RE

7

1.

In i

ts A

pp

lica

tio

n i

nst

itu

tin

g p

roce

edin

gs,

Bel

giu

m r

equ

este

d t

he

Co

urt

to

ad

jud

ge

and

dec

lare

th

at S

eneg

al i

s ob

lig

ed t

o b

rin

g c

rim

inal

pro

ceed

ing

s ag

ain

st M

r. H

abré

an

d,

fail

ing

th

at,

to

extr

adit

e h

im t

o B

elg

ium

. I

n i

ts f

inal

su

bm

issi

on

s, i

t re

qu

este

d t

he

Co

urt

to

ad

jud

ge

and

dec

lare

that

Sen

egal

bre

ach

ed a

nd

co

nti

nu

es t

o b

reac

h i

ts o

bli

gat

ion

s u

nd

er A

rtic

le 6

, p

arag

rap

h 2

, an

d

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

b

y

fail

ing

to

b

rin

g

crim

inal

p

roce

edin

gs

agai

nst

Mr.

Hab

ré,

un

less

it

extr

adit

es h

im.

7

2.

Bel

giu

m h

as p

oin

ted

o

ut

du

rin

g th

e p

roce

edin

gs

that

th

e o

bli

gat

ion

s d

eriv

ing

fr

om

Art

icle

5,

par

agra

ph

2,

Art

icle

6,

par

agra

ph

2,

and A

rtic

le 7

, p

arag

rap

h 1

, ar

e cl

ose

ly l

ink

ed w

ith

each

oth

er i

n t

he

con

tex

t o

f ac

hie

vin

g t

he

ob

ject

an

d p

urp

ose

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

, w

hic

h a

cco

rdin

g

to i

ts P

ream

ble

is

"to m

ake

mo

re e

ffec

tiv

e th

e st

rug

gle

ag

ain

st t

ort

ure

#.

Hen

ce,

inco

rpo

rati

ng

th

e

app

rop

riat

e le

gis

lati

on

in

to d

om

esti

c la

w (

Art

icle

5,

par

agra

ph

2)

wo

uld

all

ow

th

e S

tate

in

wh

ose

terr

ito

ry a

susp

ect

is p

rese

nt

imm

edia

tely

to m

ake

a p

reli

min

ary

in

qu

iry

in

to t

he

fact

s (A

rtic

le 6

,

par

agra

ph 2

), a

nec

essa

ry s

tep

in

ord

er t

o e

nab

le t

hat

Sta

te,

wit

h k

no

wle

dg

e o

f th

e fa

cts,

to

su

bm

it

the

case

to

its

co

mp

eten

t au

tho

riti

es f

or

the

pu

rpose

of

pro

secu

tio

n (

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1).

73.

Sen

egal

co

nte

sts

Bel

giu

m!s

al

leg

atio

ns

and

co

nsi

der

s th

at

it

has

n

ot

bre

ach

ed

any

pro

vis

ion

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

ag

ain

st T

ort

ure

. I

n i

ts v

iew

, th

e C

on

ven

tion

bre

aks

do

wn

th

e a

ut

ded

ere

aut

judic

are

ob

lig

atio

n i

nto

a s

erie

s o

f ac

tio

ns

wh

ich

a S

tate

sh

ou

ld t

ake.

S

eneg

al m

ain

tain

s

that

th

e m

easu

res

it

has

ta

ken

h

ith

erto

sh

ow

th

at

it

has

co

mp

lied

w

ith

it

s in

tern

atio

nal

com

mit

men

ts.

Fir

st,

Sen

egal

ass

erts

th

at i

t h

as r

eso

lved

no

t to

ex

trad

ite

Mr.

Hab

ré b

ut

to o

rgan

ize

his

tr

ial

and

to

tr

y h

im.

It

m

ain

tain

s th

at it

ad

op

ted

co

nst

itu

tio

nal

an

d le

gis

lati

ve

refo

rms

in

20

07

-20

08

, in

acc

ord

ance

wit

h A

rtic

le 5

of

the

Co

nven

tio

n,

to e

nab

le i

t to

ho

ld a

fai

r an

d e

qu

itab

le

tria

l o

f th

e al

leg

ed p

erp

etra

tor

of

the

crim

es i

n q

ues

tio

n r

easo

nab

ly q

uic

kly

. I

t fu

rth

er s

tate

s th

at i

t

36

- 2

8 -

has

tak

en m

easu

res

to r

estr

ict

the

lib

erty

of

Mr.

Hab

ré,

pu

rsu

ant

to A

rtic

le 6

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

, as

wel

l as

mea

sure

s in

pre

par

atio

n f

or

Mr.

Hab

ré!s

tri

al,

con

tem

pla

ted

un

der

th

e ae

gis

of

the

Afr

ican

Un

ion

, w

hic

h m

ust

be

reg

ard

ed a

s co

nst

itu

tin

g t

he

firs

t st

eps

tow

ard

s fu

lfil

lin

g t

he

ob

lig

atio

n t

o

pro

secu

te l

aid

do

wn

in

Art

icle

7 o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n.

Sen

egal

ad

ds

that

Bel

giu

m c

ann

ot

dic

tate

pre

cise

ly h

ow

it

sho

uld

fu

lfil

its

co

mm

itm

ents

un

der

th

e C

on

ven

tio

n,

giv

en t

hat

ho

w a

Sta

te f

ulf

ils

an i

nte

rnat

ional

ob

lig

atio

n,

par

ticu

larl

y i

n a

cas

e w

her

e th

e S

tate

must

tak

e in

tern

al m

easu

res,

is

to

a v

ery

lar

ge

exte

nt

left

to

th

e d

iscr

etio

n o

f th

at S

tate

.

7

4.

Alt

ho

ug

h,

for

the

reas

on

s g

iven

ab

ov

e, t

he

Co

urt

has

no

ju

risd

icti

on

in

th

is c

ase

ov

er t

he

alle

ged

vio

lati

on

of

Art

icle

5,

par

agra

ph

2,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

, it

note

s th

at t

he

per

form

ance

by

the

Sta

te o

f it

s o

bli

gat

ion

to

est

abli

sh t

he

un

iver

sal

juri

sdic

tio

n o

f it

s co

urt

s o

ver

the

crim

e o

f to

rtu

re i

s

a n

eces

sary

co

nd

itio

n

for

enab

lin

g

a p

reli

min

ary

in

qu

iry

(A

rtic

le 6

, p

arag

rap

h 2

),

and

fo

r

sub

mit

tin

g

the

case

to

it

s co

mp

eten

t au

tho

riti

es

for

the

purp

ose

of

pro

secu

tion

(Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1).

T

he

pu

rpo

se o

f al

l th

ese

ob

lig

atio

ns

is t

o e

nab

le p

roce

edin

gs

to b

e b

rou

gh

t ag

ain

st

the

susp

ect,

in

th

e ab

sen

ce

of

his

ex

trad

itio

n,

and

to

ach

iev

e th

e ob

ject

an

d

pu

rpo

se

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

, w

hic

h i

s to

mak

e m

ore

eff

ecti

ve

the

stru

gg

le a

gai

nst

to

rtu

re b

y a

vo

idin

g i

mp

unit

y f

or

the

per

pet

rato

rs o

f su

ch a

cts.

7

5.

Th

e ob

lig

atio

n f

or

the

Sta

te t

o c

rim

inal

ize

tort

ure

an

d t

o e

stab

lish

its

ju

risd

icti

on

ov

er i

t

fin

ds

its

equiv

alen

t in

th

e p

rov

isio

ns

of

man

y in

tern

atio

nal

co

nv

enti

on

s fo

r th

e co

mb

atin

g o

f

inte

rnat

ion

al c

rim

es.

Th

is o

bli

gat

ion

, w

hic

h h

as t

o b

e im

ple

men

ted

by

th

e S

tate

co

nce

rned

as

soo

n

as i

t is

bo

un

d b

y t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

, h

as i

n p

arti

cula

r a

pre

ven

tiv

e an

d d

eter

ren

t ch

arac

ter,

sin

ce b

y

equ

ipp

ing

th

emse

lves

wit

h t

he

nec

essa

ry l

egal

to

ols

to

pro

secu

te t

his

ty

pe

of

off

ence

, th

e S

tate

s

par

ties

en

sure

th

at

thei

r le

gal

sy

stem

s w

ill

op

erat

e to

th

at

effe

ct

and

com

mit

th

emse

lves

to

co-o

rdin

atin

g t

hei

r ef

fort

s to

eli

min

ate

any

ris

k o

f im

pu

nit

y.

This

pre

ven

tive

char

acte

r is

all

th

e

mo

re p

ron

oun

ced

as

the

nu

mb

er o

f S

tate

s p

arti

es i

ncr

ease

s.

Th

e C

on

ven

tio

n a

gai

nst

To

rtu

re t

hu

s

bri

ng

s to

get

her

15

0 S

tate

s w

hic

h h

ave

com

mit

ted

th

emse

lves

to

pro

secu

tin

g s

usp

ects

in

par

ticu

lar

on

th

e b

asis

of

un

iver

sal

juri

sdic

tio

n.

7

6.

Th

e C

ou

rt c

on

sid

ers

that

by

no

t ad

op

tin

g t

he

nec

essa

ry l

egis

lati

on

un

til

20

07

, S

eneg

al

del

ayed

th

e su

bm

issi

on o

f th

e ca

se t

o i

ts c

om

pet

ent

auth

ori

ties

for

the

purp

ose

of

pro

secu

tion.

Ind

eed

, th

e D

akar

C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pea

l w

as

led

to

co

ncl

ude

that

th

e S

eneg

ales

e co

urt

s la

cked

juri

sdic

tio

n t

o e

nte

rtai

n p

roce

edin

gs

agai

nst

Mr.

Hab

ré,

wh

o h

ad b

een i

ndic

ted f

or

crim

es a

gai

nst

hu

man

ity

, ac

ts o

f to

rtu

re a

nd

bar

bar

ity

, in

th

e ab

sen

ce o

f ap

pro

pri

ate

legis

lati

on a

llow

ing s

uch

pro

ceed

ing

s w

ith

in t

he

do

mes

tic

leg

al o

rder

(se

e p

arag

rap

h 1

8 a

bo

ve)

. T

he

Dak

ar C

ourt

of

Ap

pea

l

hel

d t

hat

:

"th

e S

eneg

ales

e le

gis

latu

re s

ho

uld

, in

co

nju

nct

ion

wit

h t

he

refo

rm u

nd

erta

ken

to t

he

Pen

al C

od

e, m

ake

amen

dm

ents

to

Art

icle

66

9 o

f th

e C

od

e o

f C

rim

inal

Pro

ced

ure

by

incl

ud

ing

th

erei

n t

he

off

ence

of

tort

ure

, w

her

eby

it

wo

uld

bri

ng

its

elf

into

co

nfo

rmit

y

wit

h

the

ob

ject

ives

o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n#

(Co

urt

o

f A

pp

eal

(Dak

ar),

C

ha

mb

re

d�a

ccu

sati

on

, P

ub

lic

Pro

secu

tor�

s O

ffic

e a

nd

F

ran

çois

D

iouf

v.

His

sène

Habré

,

Jud

gm

ent

No

. 1

35,

4 J

uly

20

00

).

Th

is j

ud

gm

ent

was

su

bse

qu

entl

y u

ph

eld b

y t

he

Sen

egal

ese

Co

urt

of

Cas

sati

on

(C

ou

rt o

f C

assa

tio

n,

pre

miè

re c

ham

bre

sta

tua

nt

en m

ati

ère

pén

ale

, S

ou

leym

an

e G

uen

gu

eng

et

al.

v.

His

sène

Habré

,

Jud

gm

ent

No

. 1

4, 2

0 M

arch

200

1).

- 2

9 -

7

7.

Th

us,

th

e fa

ct t

hat

th

e re

qu

ired

leg

isla

tio

n h

ad b

een

ad

op

ted

on

ly i

n 2

00

7 n

eces

sari

ly

affe

cted

Sen

egal

!s i

mp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f th

e o

bli

gat

ions

imp

ose

d o

n i

t by

Art

icle

6,

par

agra

ph

2,

and

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

.

7

8.

Th

e C

ou

rt,

bea

rin

g i

n m

ind

th

e li

nk w

hic

h e

xis

ts b

etw

een

th

e d

iffe

ren

t p

rovis

ion

s o

f th

e

Co

nv

enti

on

, w

ill

no

w

anal

yse

th

e al

leg

ed

bre

ach

es

of

Art

icle

6,

par

agra

ph

2,

and

A

rtic

le 7

,

par

agra

ph

1, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n.

A.

Th

e a

lleg

ed b

rea

ch o

f th

e o

bli

ga

tio

n l

aid

do

wn

in

Art

icle

6,

pa

rag

rap

h 2

, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n

7

9.

Un

der

th

e te

rms

of

Art

icle

6,

par

agra

ph

2,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

, th

e S

tate

in

wh

ose

ter

rito

ry

a p

erso

n a

lleg

ed t

o h

ave

com

mit

ted

act

s o

f to

rtu

re i

s p

rese

nt

"sh

all

imm

edia

tely

mak

e a

pre

lim

inar

y

inq

uir

y i

nto

th

e fa

cts#

.

8

0.

Bel

giu

m c

on

sid

ers

that

th

is p

roce

du

ral

ob

lig

atio

n i

s o

bv

iou

sly

in

cum

ben

t o

n S

eneg

al,

since

the

latt

er m

ust

hav

e th

e m

ost

co

mp

lete

in

form

atio

n a

vai

lab

le i

n o

rder

to

dec

ide

wh

eth

er t

her

e

are

gro

un

ds

eith

er t

o s

ub

mit

th

e m

atte

r to

its

pro

secu

tin

g a

uth

ori

ties

or,

wh

en p

oss

ible

, to

ex

trad

ite

the

susp

ect.

T

he

Sta

te i

n w

ho

se t

erri

tory

th

e su

spec

t is

pre

sen

t sh

ou

ld t

ake

effe

ctiv

e m

easu

res

to

gat

her

evid

ence

, if

nec

essa

ry t

hro

ug

h m

utu

al j

ud

icia

l as

sist

ance

, b

y a

dd

ress

ing

let

ters

ro

gat

ory

to

cou

ntr

ies

lik

ely

to

be

able

to

ass

ist

it.

Bel

giu

m t

akes

th

e v

iew

th

at S

eneg

al,

by

fai

lin

g t

o t

ake

thes

e

mea

sure

s, b

reac

hed

the

ob

lig

atio

n i

mp

ose

d o

n i

t b

y A

rtic

le 6

, p

arag

rap

h 2

, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n.

It

po

ints

ou

t th

at i

t n

on

eth

eles

s in

vit

ed S

eneg

al t

o i

ssu

e a

lett

er r

og

ato

ry,

in o

rder

to

hav

e ac

cess

to

th

e

evid

ence

in

th

e h

and

s o

f B

elg

ian

ju

dg

es (

see

par

agra

ph

30

ab

ov

e).

8

1.

In a

nsw

er t

o t

he

qu

esti

on

pu

t b

y a

Mem

ber

of

the

Co

urt

co

nce

rnin

g t

he

inte

rpre

tati

on

of

the

ob

lig

atio

n l

aid

do

wn

by

Art

icle

6,

par

agra

ph

2,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

, B

elg

ium

has

po

inte

d o

ut

that

the

nat

ure

of

the

inq

uir

y r

equ

ired

by

Art

icle

6,

par

agra

ph

2,

dep

end

s to

so

me

exte

nt

on

th

e le

gal

syst

em c

once

rned

, b

ut

also

on

th

e p

arti

cula

r ci

rcu

mst

ance

s o

f th

e ca

se.

Th

is w

ou

ld b

e th

e in

qu

iry

carr

ied

ou

t b

efo

re t

he

case

was

tra

nsm

itte

d t

o t

he

auth

ori

ties

res

po

nsi

ble

fo

r p

rose

cuti

on

, if

th

e

Sta

te

dec

ided

to

ex

erci

se

its

juri

sdic

tio

n.

L

astl

y,

Bel

giu

m

reca

lls

that

p

arag

rap

h 4

o

f th

is

Art

icle

pro

vid

es t

hat

in

tere

sted

Sta

tes

mu

st b

e in

form

ed o

f th

e fi

nd

ing

s o

f th

e in

qu

iry

, so

th

at t

hey

may

, if

nec

essa

ry,

seek

the

extr

adit

ion

of

the

alle

ged

off

end

er.

Acc

ord

ing

to

Bel

giu

m,

ther

e is

no

info

rmat

ion

bef

ore

th

e C

ou

rt s

ug

ges

tin

g t

hat

a p

reli

min

ary

inq

uir

y h

as b

een

co

nd

uct

ed b

y S

eneg

al,

and

it

con

clud

es f

rom

th

is t

hat

Sen

egal

has

vio

late

d A

rtic

le 6

, p

arag

rap

h 2

, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tion

.

82.

Sen

egal

, in

answ

er t

o t

he

sam

e q

ues

tio

n,

has

mai

nta

ined

th

at t

he

inq

uir

y i

s ai

med

at

esta

bli

shin

g t

he

fact

s, b

ut

that

it

do

es n

ot

nec

essa

rily

lea

d t

o p

rose

cuti

on

, si

nce

th

e p

rose

cuto

r m

ay,

in t

he

lig

ht

of

the

resu

lts,

co

nsi

der

th

at t

her

e ar

e n

o g

rou

nd

s fo

r su

ch p

roce

edin

gs.

S

eneg

al t

akes

the

vie

w t

hat

th

is i

s si

mp

ly a

n o

bli

gat

ion

of

mea

ns,

wh

ich

it

clai

ms

to h

ave

fulf

ille

d.

37

- 3

0 -

8

3.

In

the

op

inio

n

of

the

Co

urt

, th

e p

reli

min

ary

in

qu

iry

p

rov

ided

fo

r in

A

rtic

le 6

,

par

agra

ph

2,

is i

nte

nd

ed,

lik

e an

y i

nq

uir

y c

arri

ed o

ut

by

th

e co

mp

eten

t au

tho

riti

es,

to c

orr

ob

ora

te o

r

no

t th

e su

spic

ion

s re

gar

din

g t

he

per

son

in

qu

esti

on.

Th

at i

nq

uir

y i

s co

nd

uct

ed b

y t

ho

se a

uth

ori

ties

wh

ich

hav

e th

e ta

sk o

f d

raw

ing

up

a c

ase

file

an

d c

oll

ecti

ng

fac

ts a

nd

ev

iden

ce;

th

is m

ay c

on

sist

of

do

cum

ents

o

r w

itn

ess

stat

emen

ts re

lati

ng

to

th

e ev

ents

at

is

sue

and to

th

e su

spec

t!s

poss

ible

inv

olv

emen

t in

th

e m

atte

r co

nce

rned

. T

hu

s th

e co

-op

erat

ion

of

the

Ch

adia

n a

uth

ori

ties

sh

ou

ld h

ave

bee

n s

ou

gh

t in

th

is i

nst

ance

, an

d t

hat

of

any

oth

er S

tate

wh

ere

com

pla

ints

hav

e b

een

fil

ed i

n

rela

tio

n t

o t

he

case

, so

as

to e

nab

le t

he

Sta

te t

o f

ulf

il i

ts o

bli

gat

ion t

o m

ake

a p

reli

min

ary

inquir

y.

8

4.

Mo

reo

ver

, th

e C

onv

enti

on

spec

ifie

s th

at,

wh

en

they

ar

e op

erat

ing

on

the

bas

is

of

un

iver

sal

juri

sdic

tio

n,

the

auth

ori

ties

co

nce

rned

mu

st b

e ju

st a

s dem

andin

g i

n t

erm

s of

evid

ence

as

wh

en t

hey

hav

e ju

risd

icti

on

by

vir

tue

of

a li

nk

wit

h t

he

case

in q

ues

tion.

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph 2

, of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

thu

s st

ipu

late

s:

"I

n t

he

case

s re

ferr

ed t

o i

n A

rtic

le 5

, p

arag

rap

h 2

, th

e st

and

ard

s o

f ev

iden

ce

req

uir

ed f

or

pro

secu

tio

n a

nd

co

nv

icti

on

sh

all

in n

o w

ay b

e le

ss s

trin

gen

t th

an t

ho

se

wh

ich

ap

ply

in

th

e ca

ses

refe

rred

to i

n A

rtic

le 5

, p

arag

rap

h 1

.#

8

5.

The

Co

urt

ob

serv

es

that

S

eneg

al

has

n

ot

incl

uded

in

th

e ca

se

file

an

y

mat

eria

l

dem

on

stra

tin

g t

hat

th

e la

tter

has

car

ried

ou

t su

ch a

n i

nq

uir

y i

n r

esp

ect

of

Mr.

Hab

ré,

in a

cco

rdan

ce

wit

h A

rtic

le 6

, p

arag

rap

h 2

, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n.

It

is n

ot

suff

icie

nt,

as

Sen

egal

mai

nta

ins,

fo

r a

Sta

te

par

ty

to

the

Co

nv

enti

on

to

hav

e ad

op

ted

al

l th

e le

gis

lati

ve

mea

sure

s re

qu

ired

fo

r it

s

imp

lem

enta

tio

n;

it

mu

st a

lso

ex

erci

se i

ts j

uri

sdic

tio

n o

ver

any

act

of

tort

ure

wh

ich

is

at i

ssu

e,

star

tin

g b

y e

stab

lish

ing

th

e fa

cts.

T

he

qu

esti

on

ing a

t fi

rst

app

eara

nce

wh

ich

th

e in

ves

tig

atin

g j

ud

ge

at t

he

Tri

bu

na

l ré

gio

na

l ho

rs c

lass

e in

Dak

ar c

on

duct

ed i

n o

rder

to

est

abli

sh M

r. H

abré

!s i

den

tity

and

to i

nfo

rm h

im o

f th

e ac

ts o

f w

hic

h h

e w

as a

ccu

sed

can

no

t b

e re

gar

ded

as

per

form

ance

of

the

ob

lig

atio

n l

aid

do

wn

in

Art

icle

6,

par

agra

ph

2,

as i

t d

id n

ot

inv

olv

e an

y i

nq

uir

y i

nto

th

e ch

arg

es

agai

nst

Mr.

Hab

ré.

8

6.

Wh

ile

the

cho

ice

of

mea

ns

for

con

duct

ing

th

e in

qu

iry

rem

ain

s in

th

e h

and

s o

f th

e S

tate

s

par

ties

, ta

kin

g a

cco

un

t o

f th

e ca

se i

n q

ues

tio

n,

Art

icle

6,

par

agra

ph

2,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

req

uir

es

that

ste

ps

mu

st b

e ta

ken

as

soo

n a

s th

e su

spec

t is

id

enti

fied

in

th

e te

rrit

ory

of

the

Sta

te,

in o

rder

to

con

du

ct a

n i

nv

esti

gat

ion

of

that

cas

e.

Th

at p

rov

isio

n m

ust

be

inte

rpre

ted

in

th

e li

gh

t o

f th

e ob

ject

and

pu

rpo

se o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n,

wh

ich

is

to m

ake

mo

re e

ffec

tiv

e th

e st

rug

gle

ag

ain

st t

ort

ure

. T

he

esta

bli

shm

ent

of

the

fact

s at

iss

ue,

wh

ich

is

an e

ssen

tial

sta

ge

in t

hat

pro

cess

, b

ecam

e im

per

ativ

e in

the

pre

sen

t ca

se at

le

ast

sin

ce th

e y

ear

20

00

, w

hen

a

com

pla

int

was

fi

led

in

S

eneg

al ag

ainst

Mr.

Hab

ré (

see

par

agra

ph

17

ab

ov

e).

8

7.

Th

e C

ou

rt o

bse

rves

th

at a

fu

rth

er c

om

pla

int

agai

nst

Mr.

Hab

ré w

as f

iled

in D

akar

in

20

08

(se

e p

arag

rap

h 3

2 a

bo

ve)

, af

ter

the

leg

isla

tive

and

co

nst

itu

tio

nal

am

end

men

ts m

ade

in 2

00

7

and

20

08

, re

spec

tiv

ely

, w

hic

h w

ere

enac

ted

in

ord

er t

o c

om

ply

wit

h t

he

req

uir

emen

ts o

f A

rtic

le 5

,

par

agra

ph

2,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

(se

e p

arag

rap

hs

28

an

d 3

1 a

bo

ve)

. B

ut

ther

e is

no

thin

g i

n t

he

mat

eria

ls s

ub

mit

ted

to

th

e C

ou

rt t

o i

nd

icat

e th

at a

pre

lim

inar

y i

nq

uir

y w

as o

pen

ed f

oll

ow

ing

th

is

seco

nd

co

mp

lain

t.

Ind

eed

, in

20

10

Sen

egal

sta

ted

bef

ore

th

e E

CO

WA

S C

ou

rt o

f Ju

stic

e th

at n

o

pro

ceed

ing

s w

ere

pen

din

g o

r p

rose

cuti

on

on

go

ing a

gai

nst

Mr.

Hab

ré i

n S

eneg

ales

e co

urt

s.

- 3

1 -

8

8.

Th

e C

ou

rt f

ind

s th

at t

he

Sen

egal

ese

auth

ori

ties

did

no

t im

med

iate

ly i

nit

iate

a p

reli

min

ary

inquir

y a

s so

on a

s th

ey h

ad r

easo

n t

o s

usp

ect

Mr.

Hab

ré,

wh

o w

as i

n t

hei

r te

rrit

ory

, o

f b

ein

g

resp

onsi

ble

for

acts

of

tort

ure

. T

hat

po

int

was

rea

ched

, at

th

e la

test

, w

hen

th

e fi

rst

com

pla

int

was

file

d a

gai

nst

Mr.

Hab

ré i

n 2

00

0.

T

he

Co

urt

th

eref

ore

co

ncl

ud

es th

at S

eneg

al h

as b

reac

hed

it

s o

bli

gat

ion

u

nd

er A

rtic

le 6

,

par

agra

ph

2, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n.

B.

Th

e a

lleg

ed b

rea

ch o

f th

e o

bli

ga

tio

n l

aid

do

wn

in

Art

icle

7,

pa

rag

rap

h 1

, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n

8

9.

Art

icle

7, p

arag

rap

h 1

, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n p

rov

ides

:

"T

he

Sta

te P

arty

in

th

e te

rrit

ory

un

der

wh

ose

ju

risd

icti

on

a p

erso

n a

lleg

ed t

o

hav

e co

mm

itte

d

any

o

ffen

ce

refe

rred

to

in

A

rtic

le 4

is

fo

un

d

shal

l in

th

e ca

ses

conte

mp

late

d i

n A

rtic

le 5

, if

it

do

es n

ot

extr

adit

e h

im,

sub

mit

th

e ca

se t

o i

ts c

om

pet

ent

auth

ori

ties

for

the

purp

ose

of

pro

secu

tio

n.#

90.

As

is a

pp

aren

t fr

om

th

e tr

ava

ux

pré

pa

rato

ires

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

, A

rtic

le 7

, p

arag

rap

h 1

,

is b

ased

o

n a

sim

ilar

p

rov

isio

n co

nta

ined

in

th

e C

on

ven

tio

n fo

r th

e S

up

pre

ssio

n o

f U

nla

wfu

l

Sei

zure

of

Air

craf

t, s

ign

ed a

t T

he

Hag

ue

on

16

Dec

emb

er 1

97

0.

Th

e o

bli

gat

ion

to

su

bm

it t

he

case

to

the

com

pet

ent

auth

ori

ties

fo

r th

e p

urp

ose

o

f p

rose

cuti

on

(h

erei

naf

ter

the

"ob

lig

atio

n

to

pro

secu

te#)

was

form

ula

ted i

n s

uch

a w

ay a

s to

lea

ve

it t

o t

ho

se a

uth

ori

ties

to

dec

ide

wh

eth

er o

r n

ot

to i

nit

iate

pro

ceed

ing

s, t

hu

s re

spec

tin

g t

he

ind

epen

den

ce o

f S

tate

s p

arti

es!

jud

icia

l sy

stem

s.

Th

ese

two

co

nv

enti

on

s em

ph

asiz

e, m

ore

ov

er,

that

th

e au

thori

ties

sh

all

tak

e th

eir

dec

isio

n i

n t

he

sam

e

man

ner

as

in t

he

case

of

any

ord

inar

y o

ffen

ce o

f a

seri

ou

s n

atu

re u

nd

er t

he

law

of

the

Sta

te

con

cern

ed (

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

2,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

ag

ain

st T

ort

ure

an

d A

rtic

le 7

of

the

Hag

ue

Co

nv

enti

on

of

19

70

).

It f

oll

ow

s th

at t

he

com

pet

ent

auth

ori

ties

in

vo

lved

rem

ain

res

po

nsi

ble

fo

r

dec

idin

g o

n w

het

her

to

in

itia

te a

pro

secu

tio

n,

in t

he

lig

ht

of

the

evid

ence

bef

ore

th

em a

nd

th

e

rele

van

t ru

les

of

crim

inal

pro

ced

ure

.

9

1.

Th

e ob

lig

atio

n

to

pro

secu

te

pro

vid

ed

for

in

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

is

no

rmal

ly

imp

lem

ente

d i

n t

he

con

tex

t o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n A

gai

nst

To

rtu

re a

fter

th

e S

tate

has

per

form

ed t

he

oth

er

ob

lig

atio

ns

pro

vid

ed

for

in

the

pre

ced

ing

ar

ticl

es,

wh

ich

re

qu

ire

it

to

ado

pt

adeq

uat

e

leg

isla

tio

n t

o e

nab

le i

t to

cri

min

aliz

e to

rtu

re,

giv

e it

s co

urt

s u

niv

ersa

l ju

risd

icti

on

in

th

e m

atte

r an

d

mak

e an

inquir

y i

nto

the

fact

s.

Th

ese

ob

lig

atio

ns,

tak

en a

s a

wh

ole

, m

ay b

e re

gar

ded

as

elem

ents

of

a si

ng

le c

on

ven

tio

nal

mec

han

ism

aim

ed a

t p

rev

enti

ng

su

spec

ts f

rom

esc

apin

g t

he

con

seq

uen

ces

of

thei

r cr

imin

al r

esp

on

sib

ilit

y,

if p

rov

en.

Bel

giu

m!s

cla

im r

elat

ing

to

th

e ap

pli

cati

on

of

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

rais

es

a ce

rtai

n

nu

mb

er

of

qu

esti

on

s re

gar

din

g

the

nat

ure

an

d

mea

nin

g

of

the

ob

lig

atio

n c

on

tain

ed t

her

ein

an

d i

ts t

emp

ora

l sc

op

e, a

s w

ell

as i

ts i

mp

lem

enta

tio

n i

n t

he

pre

sen

t

case

.

1.

Th

e n

atu

re a

nd

mea

nin

g o

f th

e o

bli

ga

tio

n l

aid

do

wn

in

Art

icle

7,

pa

rag

rap

h 1

9

2.

Acc

ord

ing

to

Bel

giu

m,

the

Sta

te i

s re

qu

ired

to p

rose

cute

th

e su

spec

t as

so

on

as

the

latt

er

is p

rese

nt

in i

ts t

erri

tory

, w

het

her

or

no

t h

e h

as b

een

th

e su

bje

ct o

f a

req

ues

t fo

r ex

trad

itio

n t

o o

ne

of

the

cou

ntr

ies

refe

rred

to

in

Art

icle

5,

par

agra

ph

1

th

at i

s, i

f th

e o

ffen

ce w

as c

om

mit

ted

wit

hin

the

terr

itory

of

the

latt

er S

tate

, o

r if

on

e o

f it

s n

atio

nal

s is

eit

her

th

e al

leg

ed p

erp

etra

tor

or

the

vic

tim

o

r in

Art

icle

5,

par

agra

ph

3,

that

is,

an

oth

er S

tate

wit

h c

rim

inal

ju

risd

icti

on

ex

erci

sed

in

38

- 3

2 -

acco

rdan

ce w

ith

its

in

tern

al l

aw.

In

th

e ca

ses

pro

vid

ed f

or

in A

rtic

le 5

, th

e S

tate

can

conse

nt

to

extr

adit

ion

. T

his

is

a p

oss

ibil

ity

aff

ord

ed b

y t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

, an

d,

acco

rdin

g t

o B

elg

ium

, th

at i

s th

e

mea

nin

g o

f th

e m

axim

�a

ut

ded

ere

au

t ju

dic

are

� u

nd

er t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

. T

hu

s, i

f th

e S

tate

do

es n

ot

op

t fo

r ex

trad

itio

n,

its

ob

lig

atio

n t

o p

rose

cute

rem

ain

s u

naf

fect

ed.

In B

elgiu

m!s

vie

w,

it i

s only

if

for

on

e re

aso

n o

r an

oth

er t

he

Sta

te c

on

cern

ed d

oes

no

t p

rose

cute

, an

d a

req

ues

t fo

r ex

trad

itio

n i

s

rece

ived

, th

at t

hat

Sta

te h

as t

o e

xtr

adit

e if

it

is t

o a

vo

id b

eing i

n b

reac

h o

f th

is c

entr

al o

bli

gat

ion

un

der

th

e C

on

ven

tio

n.

9

3.

Fo

r it

s p

art,

Sen

egal

tak

es t

he

vie

w t

hat

th

e C

on

ven

tio

n c

erta

inly

req

uir

es i

t to

pro

secu

te

Mr.

Hab

ré,

wh

ich

it

clai

ms

it h

as e

nd

eav

ou

red

to d

o b

y f

oll

ow

ing

th

e le

gal

pro

ced

ure

pro

vid

ed f

or

in t

hat

in

stru

men

t, b

ut

that

it

has

no

ob

lig

atio

n t

o B

elg

ium

un

der

th

e C

on

ven

tion

to

ex

trad

ite

him

.

9

4.

Th

e C

ou

rt c

on

sid

ers

that

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

req

uir

es t

he

Sta

te c

on

cern

ed t

o s

ub

mit

the

case

to

its

co

mp

eten

t au

tho

riti

es f

or

the

pu

rpose

of

pro

secu

tio

n,

irre

spec

tive

of

the

exis

tence

of

a p

rio

r re

qu

est

for

the

extr

adit

ion

of

the

susp

ect.

T

hat

is

wh

y A

rtic

le 6

, p

arag

rap

h 2

, ob

lig

es t

he

Sta

te t

o m

ake

a p

reli

min

ary

in

qu

iry

im

med

iate

ly f

rom

th

e ti

me

that

the

susp

ect

is p

rese

nt

in i

ts

terr

ito

ry.

T

he

ob

lig

atio

n

to

sub

mit

th

e ca

se

to

the

com

pet

ent

auth

ori

ties

, u

nd

er

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

may

or

may

no

t re

sult

in

th

e in

stit

uti

on

of

pro

ceed

ing

s, i

n t

he

lig

ht

of

the

evid

ence

bef

ore

th

em,

rela

tin

g t

o t

he

char

ges

ag

ain

st t

he

susp

ect.

9

5.

Ho

wev

er,

if t

he

Sta

te i

n w

ho

se t

erri

tory

th

e su

spec

t is

pre

sent

has

rec

eived

a r

eques

t fo

r

extr

adit

ion

in a

ny

of

the

case

s en

vis

aged

in

th

e p

rov

isio

ns

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

, it

can

rel

iev

e it

self

of

its

ob

lig

atio

n

to

pro

secu

te

by

ac

ced

ing

to

th

at

requ

est.

It

foll

ow

s th

at

the

choic

e b

etw

een

extr

adit

ion

or

sub

mis

sio

n f

or

pro

secu

tio

n,

pu

rsu

ant

to t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

, d

oes

no

t m

ean

th

at t

he

two

alte

rnat

ives

are

to

be

giv

en t

he

sam

e w

eig

ht.

E

xtr

adit

ion

is

an o

pti

on o

ffer

ed t

o t

he

Sta

te b

y t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

, w

her

eas

pro

secu

tio

n i

s an

in

tern

atio

nal

ob

lig

atio

n u

nd

er t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

, th

e v

iola

tio

n

of

wh

ich

is

a w

ron

gfu

l ac

t en

gag

ing

th

e re

spo

nsi

bil

ity

of

the

Sta

te.

2.

Th

e te

mp

ora

l sc

op

e o

f th

e o

bli

ga

tion

la

id d

ow

n i

n A

rtic

le 7

, p

ara

gra

ph

1

9

6.

A M

emb

er o

f th

e C

ou

rt a

sked

th

e P

arti

es,

firs

t, w

het

her

th

e o

bli

gat

ion

s in

cum

ben

t up

on

Sen

egal

un

der

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

ap

pli

ed t

o o

ffen

ces

alle

ged

to

hav

e b

een

com

mit

ted

bef

ore

26

Ju

ne

19

87

, th

e d

ate

wh

en t

he

Con

ven

tio

n e

nte

red

in

to f

orc

e fo

r S

eneg

al,

and

,

seco

nd

ly,

if,

in th

e ci

rcu

mst

ance

s o

f th

e p

rese

nt

case

, th

ose

ob

lig

atio

ns

exte

nd

ed to

o

ffen

ces

alle

ged

ly c

om

mit

ted

bef

ore

25

Ju

ne

19

99

, th

e d

ate

wh

en t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

en

tere

d i

nto

fo

rce

for

Bel

giu

m (

see

par

agra

ph

19 a

bo

ve)

. T

hose

qu

esti

on

s re

late

to

th

e te

mp

ora

l ap

pli

cati

on

of

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

, ac

cord

ing

to

th

e ti

me

wh

en t

he

off

ence

s ar

e al

leged

to h

ave

bee

n

com

mit

ted

an

d t

he

dat

es o

f en

try

in

to f

orc

e o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n f

or

each

of

the

Par

ties

.

9

7.

In

thei

r re

pli

es,

the

Par

ties

ag

ree

that

ac

ts

of

tort

ure

ar

e re

gar

ded

b

y

cust

om

ary

inte

rnat

ion

al l

aw a

s in

tern

atio

nal

cri

mes

, in

dep

enden

tly

of

the

Con

ven

tio

n.

- 3

3 -

98.

As

regar

ds

the

firs

t as

pec

t o

f th

e q

ues

tio

n p

ut

by

th

e M

emb

er o

f th

e C

ou

rt,

nam

ely

whet

her

the

Conven

tio

n a

pp

lies

to

off

ence

s co

mm

itte

d b

efo

re 2

6 J

un

e 1

98

7,

Bel

giu

m c

on

ten

ds

that

the

alle

ged

bre

ach

of

the

ob

lig

atio

n a

ut

ded

ere

au

t ju

dic

are

occ

urr

ed a

fter

th

e en

try

in

to f

orc

e o

f

the

Co

nv

enti

on

fo

r S

eneg

al,

even

th

oug

h t

he

alle

ged

act

s o

ccu

rred

bef

ore

that

dat

e.

Bel

giu

m

furt

her

arg

ues

th

at A

rtic

le 7

, p

arag

rap

h 1

, is

inte

nd

ed t

o s

tren

gth

en t

he

exis

tin

g l

aw b

y l

ayin

g d

ow

n

spec

ific

pro

ced

ura

l ob

lig

atio

ns,

th

e p

urp

ose

of

wh

ich

is

to e

nsu

re t

hat

th

ere

wil

l b

e n

o i

mp

un

ity

an

d

that

, in

th

ese

circ

um

stan

ces,

th

ose

pro

ced

ura

l o

bli

gat

ion

s co

uld

ap

ply

to

cri

mes

co

mm

itte

d b

efo

re

the

entr

y i

nto

fo

rce

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

fo

r S

eneg

al.

Fo

r it

s p

art,

th

e la

tter

do

es n

ot

den

y t

hat

th

e

ob

lig

atio

n p

rov

ided

fo

r in

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

can

ap

ply

to

off

ence

s al

leg

edly

co

mm

itte

d b

efo

re

26

Ju

ne

19

87.

9

9.

In t

he

Cou

rt!s

op

inio

n,

the

pro

hib

itio

n o

f to

rtu

re i

s p

art

of

cust

om

ary

in

tern

atio

nal

law

and

it

has

bec

om

e a

per

emp

tory

no

rm (

jus

cog

ens)

.

T

hat

pro

hib

itio

n i

s g

roun

ded

in a

wid

esp

read

in

tern

atio

nal

pra

ctic

e an

d o

n t

he

op

inio

ju

ris

of

Sta

tes.

It

ap

pea

rs i

n n

um

ero

us

inte

rnat

ion

al i

nst

rum

ents

of

un

iver

sal

app

lica

tio

n (

in p

arti

cula

r th

e

Un

iver

sal

Dec

lara

tio

n o

f H

um

an R

igh

ts o

f 1

94

8,

the

19

49 G

enev

a C

on

ven

tion

s fo

r th

e p

rote

ctio

n

of

war

v

icti

ms;

the

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Co

ven

ant

on

C

ivil

an

d

Po

liti

cal

Rig

hts

o

f 1

96

6;

G

ener

al

Ass

emb

ly r

eso

luti

on

34

52/3

0 o

f 9

Dec

emb

er 1

97

5 o

n t

he

Pro

tect

ion

of

All

Per

son

s fr

om

Bei

ng

Sub

ject

ed t

o T

ort

ure

an

d O

ther

Cru

el,

Inh

um

an o

r D

egra

din

g T

reat

men

t o

r P

un

ish

men

t),

and

it

has

bee

n i

ntr

od

uce

d i

nto

th

e d

om

esti

c la

w o

f al

mo

st a

ll S

tate

s;

fin

ally

, ac

ts o

f to

rtu

re a

re r

egu

larl

y

den

ou

nce

d w

ith

in n

atio

nal

an

d i

nte

rnat

ion

al f

ora

.

1

00

. H

ow

ever

, th

e ob

lig

atio

n t

o p

rose

cute

th

e al

leg

ed p

erp

etra

tors

of

acts

of

tort

ure

un

der

th

e

Co

nv

enti

on

ap

pli

es o

nly

to f

acts

hav

ing

occ

urr

ed a

fter

its

en

try

in

to f

orc

e fo

r th

e S

tate

co

nce

rned

.

Art

icle

28

of

the

Vie

nn

a C

on

ven

tion

on t

he

Law

of

Tre

atie

s, w

hic

h r

efle

cts

cust

om

ary

law

on

th

e

mat

ter,

pro

vid

es:

"U

nle

ss a

dif

fere

nt

inte

nti

on

ap

pea

rs f

rom

th

e tr

eaty

or

is o

ther

wis

e es

tab

lish

ed,

its

pro

vis

ion

s d

o n

ot

bin

d a

par

ty i

n r

elat

ion

to

an

y a

ct o

r fa

ct w

hic

h t

oo

k p

lace

or

any

situ

atio

n w

hic

h c

ease

d t

o e

xis

t b

efo

re t

he

dat

e o

f th

e en

try

in

to f

orc

e o

f th

at t

reat

y w

ith

resp

ect

to t

hat

par

ty.#

T

he

Co

urt

n

ote

s th

at n

oth

ing

in

th

e C

on

ven

tion

ag

ain

st T

ort

ure

re

vea

ls an

in

ten

tio

n to

req

uir

e a

Sta

te p

arty

to c

rim

inal

ize,

un

der

Art

icle

4,

acts

of

tort

ure

th

at t

ook

pla

ce p

rio

r to

its

entr

y

into

fo

rce

for

that

Sta

te,

or

to e

stab

lish

its

ju

risd

icti

on

ov

er s

uch

act

s in

acc

ord

ance

wit

h A

rtic

le 5

.

Co

nse

qu

entl

y,

in t

he

vie

w o

f th

e C

ou

rt,

the

ob

lig

atio

n t

o p

rose

cute

, u

nd

er A

rtic

le 7

, p

arag

rap

h 1

, o

f

the

Co

nv

enti

on

do

es n

ot

app

ly t

o s

uch

act

s.

1

01

. T

he

Co

mm

itte

e ag

ain

st

To

rtu

re

emp

has

ized

, in

p

arti

cula

r,

in

its

dec

isio

n

of

23

No

vem

ber

19

89

in

th

e ca

se o

f O

.R.,

M.M

. a

nd

M.S

. v

. A

rgen

tina

(C

om

mu

nic

atio

ns

No

s. 1

/19

88,

2/1

988

an

d 3

/19

88,

dec

isio

n o

f 2

3 N

ovem

ber

19

89

, p

ara.

7.5

, O

ffic

ial

Do

cum

ents

of

the

Gen

era

l

Ass

emb

ly,

Fo

rty-

Fif

th

Ses

sio

n,

Su

pp

lem

ent

No

. 4

4

(UN

do

c. A

/45

/44

, A

nn

. V

, p

. 1

12

))

that

39

- 3

4 -

"$to

rtu

re!

for

pu

rpo

ses

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

can

on

ly m

ean

to

rtu

re t

hat

occ

urs

sub

seq

uen

t to

th

e en

try

into

fo

rce

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

#.

Ho

wev

er,

wh

en t

he

Co

mm

itte

e co

nsi

der

ed M

r. H

abré

!s s

itu

atio

n,

the

qu

esti

on

of

the

tem

po

ral

sco

pe

of

the

ob

lig

atio

ns

con

tain

ed i

n t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

was

no

t ra

ised

,

no

r d

id t

he

Co

mm

itte

e it

self

ad

dre

ss t

hat

qu

esti

on

(G

uen

gu

eng

et

al.

v.

Sen

egal

(Co

mm

un

icat

ion

No

. 1

81

/20

01,

dec

isio

n o

f 1

7 M

ay 2

00

6,

UN

do

c. C

AT

/C/3

6/D

/181

/20

01

)).

1

02

. T

he

Co

urt

co

ncl

ud

es

that

S

eneg

al!s

o

bli

gat

ion

to

pro

secu

te

purs

uan

t to

A

rtic

le 7

,

par

agra

ph

1,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

do

es n

ot

app

ly t

o a

cts

alle

ged

to

hav

e b

een

co

mm

itte

d b

efo

re t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

en

tere

d i

nto

forc

e fo

r S

eneg

al o

n 2

6 J

un

e 1

987

. T

he

Co

urt

wo

uld

rec

all,

ho

wev

er,

that

the

com

pla

ints

ag

ain

st M

r. H

abré

in

clu

de

a n

um

ber

of

seri

ous

off

ence

s al

leged

ly c

om

mit

ted a

fter

that

dat

e (s

ee p

arag

rap

hs

17

, 1

9-2

1 a

nd

32

ab

ov

e).

Co

nse

qu

entl

y,

Sen

egal

is

un

der

an

ob

lig

atio

n t

o

sub

mit

th

e al

leg

atio

ns

con

cern

ing

th

ose

ac

ts

to

its

com

pet

ent

auth

ori

ties

fo

r th

e p

urp

ose

of

pro

secu

tio

n.

A

lth

ou

gh

S

eneg

al is

n

ot

req

uir

ed u

nd

er th

e C

on

ven

tio

n to

in

stit

ute

p

roce

edin

gs

con

cern

ing

act

s th

at w

ere

com

mit

ted

bef

ore

26

Ju

ne

19

87

, n

oth

ing

in

th

at i

nst

rum

ent

pre

ven

ts i

t

fro

m d

oin

g s

o.

1

03

. T

he

Co

urt

no

w c

om

es t

o t

he

seco

nd

asp

ect

of

the

qu

esti

on

pu

t by

a M

emb

er o

f th

e

Co

urt

, n

amel

y,

wh

at w

as t

he

effe

ct o

f th

e d

ate

of

entr

y i

nto

fo

rce

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

, fo

r B

elg

ium

,

on

th

e sc

op

e o

f th

e o

bli

gat

ion

to

pro

secu

te.

Bel

giu

m c

on

ten

ds

that

Sen

egal

was

sti

ll b

ou

nd

by

th

e

ob

ligat

ion

to

pro

secu

te M

r. H

abré

aft

er B

elg

ium

had

its

elf

bec

om

e p

arty

to t

he

Conven

tion,

and

that

it

was

th

eref

ore

en

titl

ed t

o i

nv

ok

e b

efo

re t

he

Co

urt

bre

ach

es o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n o

ccu

rrin

g a

fter

25

Ju

ly 1

99

9.

Sen

egal

dis

pu

tes

Bel

giu

m!s

rig

ht

to e

ng

age

its

resp

on

sib

ilit

y f

or

acts

all

eged

to

hav

e

occ

urr

ed p

rior

to t

hat

dat

e.

It c

on

sid

ers

that

th

e o

bli

gat

ion

pro

vid

ed f

or

in A

rtic

le 7

, p

arag

rap

h 1

,

bel

on

gs

to "

the

cate

go

ry o

f d

ivis

ible

erg

a o

mn

es o

bli

gat

ion

s#,

in t

hat

on

ly t

he

inju

red

Sta

te c

ou

ld

call

fo

r it

s b

reac

h t

o b

e sa

nct

ion

ed.

Sen

egal

acc

ord

ing

ly c

on

clud

es t

hat

Bel

giu

m w

as n

ot

enti

tled

to

rely

on

th

e st

atu

s o

f in

jure

d S

tate

in

res

pec

t o

f ac

ts p

rio

r to

25

Ju

ly 1

99

9 a

nd

co

uld

no

t se

ek

retr

oac

tiv

e ap

pli

cati

on

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

.

1

04

. T

he

Co

urt

co

nsi

der

s th

at B

elg

ium

has

bee

n e

nti

tled

, w

ith

eff

ect

fro

m 2

5 J

uly

19

99

, th

e

dat

e w

hen

it

bec

ame

par

ty t

o t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

, to

req

ues

t th

e C

ou

rt t

o r

ule

on

Sen

egal

!s c

om

pli

ance

wit

h i

ts o

bli

gat

ion

un

der

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1.

In

th

e p

rese

nt

case

, th

e C

ou

rt n

ote

s th

at B

elg

ium

inv

ok

es S

eneg

al!s

res

po

nsi

bil

ity

fo

r th

e la

tter

!s c

on

du

ct s

tart

ing

in

th

e y

ear

20

00

, w

hen

a c

om

pla

int

was

fil

ed a

gai

nst

Mr.

Hab

ré i

n S

eneg

al (

see

par

agra

ph

17

ab

ov

e).

1

05

. T

he

Co

urt

no

tes

that

th

e p

rev

iou

s fi

nd

ing

s ar

e al

so v

alid

fo

r th

e te

mp

ora

l ap

pli

cati

on

of

Art

icle

6,

par

agra

ph

2,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

.

3.

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f th

e o

bli

ga

tio

n l

aid

do

wn

in

Arti

cle

7,

pa

rag

rap

h 1

1

06

. B

elg

ium

, w

hil

e re

cog

niz

ing

th

at t

he

tim

e fr

ame

for

imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f th

e ob

lig

atio

n t

o

pro

secu

te d

epen

ds

on

th

e ci

rcu

mst

ance

s of

each

cas

e, a

nd

in

par

ticu

lar

on

th

e ev

iden

ce g

ath

ered

,

con

sid

ers

that

th

e S

tate

in

w

ho

se

terr

ito

ry

the

susp

ect

is

pre

sen

t ca

nn

ot

ind

efin

itel

y

del

ay

per

form

ing

th

e o

bli

gat

ion

in

cum

ben

t u

po

n i

t to

su

bm

it t

he

mat

ter

to i

ts c

om

pet

ent

auth

ori

ties

fo

r

- 3

5 -

the

pu

rpo

se o

f p

rose

cuti

on

. P

rocr

asti

nat

ion

on

th

e la

tter

!s p

art

cou

ld,

acco

rdin

g t

o B

elg

ium

, v

iola

te

bo

th t

he

rig

hts

of

the

vic

tim

s an

d t

ho

se o

f th

e ac

cuse

d.

No

r ca

n t

he

fin

anci

al d

iffi

cult

ies

inv

ok

ed

by

Sen

egal

(se

e p

arag

rap

hs

28

-29

an

d 3

3 a

bo

ve)

ju

stif

y t

he

fact

th

at t

he

latt

er h

as d

on

e n

oth

ing

to

con

du

ct a

n i

nq

uir

y a

nd

in

itia

te p

roce

edin

gs.

1

07

. T

he

sam

e ap

pli

es,

acco

rdin

g t

o B

elg

ium

, to

Sen

egal

!s r

efer

ral

of

the

mat

ter

to t

he

Afr

ican

Un

ion

in

Jan

uar

y 2

00

6,

wh

ich

do

es n

ot

exem

pt

it f

rom

per

form

ing

its

ob

lig

atio

ns

un

der

th

e

Co

nv

enti

on

. M

ore

ov

er,

at i

ts s

even

th s

essi

on

in J

uly

20

06

(se

e p

arag

rap

h 2

3 a

bo

ve)

, th

e A

ssem

bly

of

Hea

ds

of

Sta

te a

nd G

ov

ern

men

t o

f th

e A

fric

an U

nio

n m

and

ated

Sen

egal

"to

pro

secu

te a

nd

ensu

re t

hat

His

sène

Hab

ré i

s tr

ied

, o

n b

ehal

f o

f A

fric

a, b

y a

co

mp

eten

t S

eneg

ales

e co

urt

wit

h

guar

ante

es f

or

fair

tri

al#

(Afr

ican

Un

ion

, d

oc.

Ass

emb

ly/A

U/D

ec.

12

7 (

VII

), p

ara.

5).

1

08

. W

ith

reg

ard

to

th

e le

gal

dif

ficu

ltie

s w

hic

h S

eneg

al c

laim

s to

hav

e fa

ced

in

per

form

ing

its

ob

lig

atio

ns

un

der

th

e C

on

ven

tion

, B

elg

ium

co

nte

nd

s th

at S

eneg

al c

ann

ot

rely

on

its

dom

esti

c

law

in

ord

er t

o a

vo

id i

ts i

nte

rnat

ion

al r

esp

on

sib

ilit

y.

Mo

reo

ver

, B

elg

ium

rec

alls

th

e ju

dg

men

t o

f

the

EC

OW

AS

Co

urt

of

Just

ice

of

18

No

vem

ber

20

10

(se

e p

arag

rap

h 3

5 a

bo

ve)

, w

hic

h c

on

sid

ered

that

S

eneg

al!s

am

end

men

t to

it

s P

enal

C

od

e in

20

07

m

igh

t be

con

trar

y

to

the

pri

nci

ple

o

f

no

n-r

etro

acti

vit

y o

f cr

imin

al l

aws,

an

d d

eem

ed t

hat

pro

ceed

ing

s ag

ain

st H

issè

ne

Hab

ré s

ho

uld

be

con

du

cted

bef

ore

an

ad

hoc

cou

rt o

f an

in

tern

atio

nal

ch

arac

ter,

arg

uin

g t

hat

th

is j

ud

gm

ent

can

no

t

be

inv

ok

ed a

gai

nst

it.

B

elg

ium

em

ph

asiz

es t

hat

, if

Sen

egal

is

no

w c

on

fro

nte

d w

ith

a s

itu

atio

n o

f

con

flic

t b

etw

een

tw

o i

nte

rnat

ion

al o

bli

gat

ion

s as

a r

esu

lt o

f th

at d

ecis

ion

, th

at i

s th

e re

sult

of

its

ow

n f

aili

ng

s in

im

ple

men

tin

g t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

ag

ain

st T

ort

ure

.

109.

For

its

par

t, S

eneg

al h

as r

epea

ted

ly a

ffir

med

, th

rou

gh

ou

t th

e p

roce

edin

gs,

its

in

ten

tio

n

to

com

ply

w

ith

it

s obli

gat

ion

un

der

A

rtic

le 7

, p

arag

rap

h 1

, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n,

by

ta

kin

g

the

nec

essa

ry m

easu

res

to in

stit

ute

p

roce

edin

gs

agai

nst

M

r. H

abré

. S

eneg

al co

nte

nd

s th

at it

o

nly

sou

gh

t fi

nan

cial

sup

po

rt i

n o

rder

to

pre

par

e th

e tr

ial

un

der

fav

ou

rab

le c

on

dit

ion

s, g

iven

its

un

iqu

e

nat

ure

, h

avin

g r

egar

d t

o t

he

nu

mb

er o

f v

icti

ms,

th

e d

ista

nce

th

at w

itn

esse

s w

ou

ld h

ave

to t

rav

el a

nd

the

dif

ficu

lty

of

gat

her

ing e

vid

ence

. I

t cl

aim

s th

at i

t h

as n

ever

so

ug

ht,

on

th

ese

gro

un

ds,

to

ju

stif

y

the

no

n-p

erfo

rman

ce o

f it

s co

nv

enti

on

al o

bli

gat

ion

s.

Lik

ewis

e, S

eneg

al c

on

ten

ds

that

, in

ref

erri

ng

the

mat

ter

to t

he

Afr

ican

Un

ion

, it

was

nev

er i

ts i

nte

nti

on

to

rel

iev

e it

self

of

its

ob

lig

atio

ns.

1

10

. M

ore

over

, S

eneg

al o

bse

rves

th

at t

he

jud

gm

ent

of

the

EC

OW

AS

Co

urt

of

Just

ice

is n

ot

a

con

stra

int

of

a d

om

esti

c n

atu

re.

Wh

ile

bea

rin

g i

n m

ind

its

du

ty t

o c

om

ply

wit

h i

ts c

on

ven

tio

nal

ob

lig

atio

n,

it c

on

ten

ds

that

it

is n

on

eth

eles

s su

bje

ct t

o t

he

auth

ori

ty o

f th

at c

ou

rt.

Th

us,

Sen

egal

po

ints

ou

t th

at t

hat

dec

isio

n r

equ

ired

it

to m

ake

fun

dam

enta

l ch

ang

es t

o t

he

pro

cess

beg

un

in

20

06

,

des

ign

ed t

o r

esu

lt i

n a

tri

al a

t th

e n

atio

nal

lev

el,

and

to

mo

bil

ize

effo

rt i

n o

rder

to

cre

ate

an a

d h

oc

trib

un

al o

f an

in

tern

atio

nal

ch

arac

ter,

th

e es

tab

lish

men

t o

f w

hic

h w

ou

ld b

e m

ore

cu

mb

erso

me.

1

11

. T

he

Cou

rt co

nsi

der

s th

at S

eneg

al!s

d

uty

to

co

mp

ly w

ith

it

s o

bli

gat

ions

un

der

th

e

Co

nv

enti

on

can

no

t b

e af

fect

ed b

y t

he

dec

isio

n o

f th

e E

CO

WA

S C

ou

rt o

f Ju

stic

e.

40

- 3

6 -

1

12

. T

he

Co

urt

is

of

the

op

inio

n t

hat

th

e fi

nan

cial

dif

ficu

ltie

s ra

ised

by

Sen

egal

can

no

t

just

ify

th

e fa

ct t

hat

it

fail

ed t

o i

nit

iate

pro

ceed

ing

s ag

ain

st M

r. H

abré

. F

or

its

par

t, S

eneg

al i

tsel

f

stat

es t

hat

it

has

nev

er s

ou

gh

t to

use

th

e is

sue

of

fin

anci

al s

up

po

rt t

o j

ust

ify

any

fai

lure

to

co

mp

ly

wit

h a

n o

bli

gat

ion

in

cum

ben

t u

po

n i

t.

Mo

reo

ver

, th

e re

ferr

al o

f th

e m

atte

r to

th

e A

fric

an U

nio

n,

as

reco

gn

ized

by

Sen

egal

its

elf,

can

no

t ju

stif

y t

he

latt

er!s

del

ays

in c

om

ply

ing

wit

h i

ts o

bli

gat

ion

s

un

der

th

e C

on

ven

tio

n.

The

dil

igen

ce w

ith

wh

ich

th

e au

tho

riti

es o

f th

e fo

rum

Sta

te m

ust

co

nduct

the

pro

ceed

ing

s is

al

so

inte

nd

ed

to

gu

aran

tee

the

susp

ect

fair

tr

eatm

ent

at

all

stag

es

of

the

pro

ceed

ing

s (A

rtic

le 7

, p

arag

rap

h 3

, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n).

1

13

. T

he

Co

urt

ob

serv

es t

hat

, u

nd

er A

rtic

le 2

7 o

f th

e V

ien

na

Co

nv

enti

on

on t

he

Law

of

Tre

atie

s, w

hic

h r

efle

cts

cust

om

ary

law

, S

eneg

al c

ann

ot

just

ify

its

bre

ach o

f th

e ob

lig

atio

n p

rov

ided

for

in A

rtic

le 7

, p

arag

rap

h 1

, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tion

ag

ain

st T

ort

ure

b

y in

vok

ing

p

rov

isio

ns

of

its

inte

rnal

law

, in

par

ticu

lar

by

in

vo

kin

g t

he

dec

isio

ns

as t

o l

ack

of

juri

sdic

tio

n r

end

ered

by

its

co

urt

s

in 2

00

0 a

nd

20

01

, o

r th

e fa

ct t

hat

it

did

no

t ad

op

t th

e n

eces

sary

leg

isla

tion p

urs

uan

t to

Art

icle

5,

par

agra

ph

2, o

f th

at C

on

ven

tio

n u

nti

l 2

00

7.

1

14

. W

hil

e A

rtic

le 7

, p

arag

rap

h 1

, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tion

do

es n

ot

con

tain

any

ind

icat

ion

as

to

the

tim

e fr

ame

for

per

form

ance

of

the

ob

lig

atio

n f

or

wh

ich

it

pro

vid

es,

it i

s nec

essa

rily

im

pli

cit

in

the

tex

t th

at i

t m

ust

be

imp

lem

ente

d w

ith

in a

rea

son

able

tim

e, i

n a

man

ner

co

mp

atib

le w

ith

th

e

ob

ject

an

d p

urp

ose

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

.

1

15

. T

he

Co

urt

co

nsi

der

s th

at

the

ob

lig

atio

n

on

a

Sta

te

to

pro

secu

te,

pro

vid

ed

for

in

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

, is

in

ten

ded

to

all

ow

th

e fu

lfil

men

t o

f th

e C

on

ven

tio

n!s

ob

ject

an

d p

urp

ose

, w

hic

h i

s "t

o m

ake

mo

re e

ffec

tive

the

stru

gg

le a

gai

nst

to

rtu

re#

(Pre

amb

le t

o t

he

Co

nv

enti

on

). It

is

for

that

rea

son

th

at p

roce

edin

gs

sho

uld

be

un

der

tak

en w

ith

ou

t d

elay

.

1

16

. In

res

pon

se t

o a

qu

esti

on

pu

t by

a M

emb

er o

f th

e C

ou

rt c

on

cern

ing

the

dat

e o

f th

e

vio

lati

on

of

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

alle

ged

by

Bel

giu

m,

it r

epli

ed t

hat

th

at d

ate

cou

ld f

all

in t

he

yea

r 2

00

0,

wh

en a

co

mp

lain

t ag

ain

st M

r. H

abré

was

fil

ed (

see

par

agra

ph

17 a

bo

ve)

, o

r la

ter,

in

Mar

ch 2

00

1,

wh

en t

he

Co

urt

of

Cas

sati

on

co

nfi

rmed

th

e d

ecis

ion

of

the

Dak

ar C

ou

rt o

f A

pp

eal,

ann

ull

ing

th

e p

roce

edin

gs

in r

esp

ect

of

Mr.

Hab

ré o

n t

he

gro

un

d t

hat

th

e S

eneg

ales

e co

urt

s la

cked

juri

sdic

tio

n (

see

par

agra

ph

18

ab

ov

e).

1

17

. T

he

Cou

rt f

ind

s th

at t

he

ob

lig

atio

n p

rov

ided

fo

r in

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

requ

ired

Sen

egal

to

tak

e al

l m

easu

res

nec

essa

ry f

or

its

imp

lem

enta

tio

n a

s so

on

as

po

ssib

le,

in p

arti

cula

r o

nce

the

firs

t co

mp

lain

t h

ad b

een

fil

ed a

gai

nst

Mr.

Hab

ré i

n 2

000

. H

avin

g f

aile

d t

o d

o s

o,

Sen

egal

has

bre

ach

ed a

nd

rem

ain

s in

bre

ach

of

its

ob

lig

atio

ns

un

der

Art

icle

7,

par

agra

ph

1,

of

the

Co

nv

enti

on

.

V.R

EM

ED

IES

1

18

. T

he

Cou

rt n

ote

s th

at,

in i

ts f

inal

su

bm

issi

on

s, B

elg

ium

req

ues

ts t

he

Court

to a

dju

dge

and

dec

lare

, fi

rst,

th

at S

eneg

al b

reac

hed

its

in

tern

atio

nal

ob

lig

atio

ns

by

fai

lin

g t

o i

nco

rpo

rate

in

du

e

tim

e in

to i

ts d

om

esti

c la

w t

he

pro

vis

ion

s n

eces

sary

to

en

able

th

e S

eneg

ales

e ju

dic

ial

auth

ori

ties

to

exer

cise

th

e u

niv

ersa

l ju

risd

icti

on

pro

vid

ed f

or

in A

rtic

le 5

, p

arag

rap

h 2

, o

f th

e C

on

ven

tion

ag

ain

st

41