GUIDE ON ANTI-TORTURE LEGISLATION In Uganda, this jurisdiction is also stipulated in the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act: “The Chief Magistrates Court of Uganda shall have jurisdiction to try the offences prescribed by this Act, wherever committed, if the offence is committed (c) by a citizen of Uganda or by a person ordinarily resident in Uganda (…).” 103 103 14. The Convention requires States parties to establish universal jurisdiction over any alleged offender present in the territory under its jurisdiction The crime of torture is recognised to be so heinous, that it is one of a limited category of so-called “international crimes” in which all countries have an obligation to see that perpetrators do not escape justice. Under this head of jurisdiction, domestic judicial systems have the ability to investigate and prosecute certain crimes, even if they were not committed on its territory, by one of its nationals, or against one of its nationals. It would be preferable for victims of international crimes to find redress in the courts of the states where the crimes were committed but universal jurisdiction was created to act as a “safety net” when the territorial state is unable or unwilling to conduct an effective investigation and prosecution. The application of universal jurisdiction reduces the existence of “safe havens” where a person responsible for grave crimes could enjoy impunity. This form of jurisdiction for the crime of torture is foreseen by the Convention and is found in article 5(2), which provides for universal jurisdiction. This article requires States to either prosecute or extradite the alleged offender if he/she is present in any territory under its jurisdiction (even if the alleged offender is not a national of the State or even if the crime was not committed on the State’s territory). The only requirement is that the alleged offender is found on the territory of the State and the State decides not to extradite him/her. In that case, the State shall establish jurisdiction to make sure that no alleged offender evades justice. In this context the term “cornerstone” of the Convention is often used, either by the Committee or by those commenting on its work.104 This is in line with the idea of the Convention creating a system where torturers cannot find a place to hide. The Committee insists unambiguously on the implementation of universal jurisdiction,105 going beyond the criminal procedure law by requesting administrative regulations also to support the implementation.106 Uganda, the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, op. cit. 28, section 17(1)(c). 103 CAT, Suleymane Guengueng et al. v. Senegal (18 April 2001), UN Doc. CAT/C/36/D/181/2001, § 5; Lene Wendland, A Handbook on State Obligations under the UN Convention against Torture (APT 2002) p. 37; the term “cornerstone” comes from the Swedish delegation drafting the Convention: Burgers and Danelius, op. cit. 33, p. 58. 104 105 CAT, Concluding observations on Mexico (11 December 2012), UN Doc. CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6, § 11. 106 CAT, Concluding observations on United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (24 June 2013), UN Doc. CAT/C/GBR/CO/5, § 8. 33