202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 Remedy and Reparations for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, which aims to provide guidelines for the concept of redress and reparations for victims of, inter alia, torture. In 2001, the Commission requested that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights convene a meeting with a view to finalising the Draft Basic Principles before the meeting of the Commission in 2002. The Office of the High Commissioner plans to convene the meeting in mid-2002. Sir Nigel Rodley, the former Special Rapporteur on Torture, has pointed out that “[f]inancial compensation will not always be the appropriate remedy [for human rights violations], and where it is, its measure will be uncertain.”; Nigel Rodley, “The International Legal Consequences of Torture, Extra-Legal Execution, and Disappearance”, in Lutz, Hannum and Burke (eds.), “New Directions in Human Rights”, University of Pennsylvania Press, May 1989, p. 172. See for example CAT/C/SR.10, § 25; Ingelse, ibid. note. 20, p. 370. CAT/C/SR.36, § 21. Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 370. Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, pp. 146-147. See also CAT/C/SR.96, § 20. CAT/C/SR.18 § 29; see Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 373. CAT/C/SR.10, § 15; CAT/C/SR.32, § 58. However, cf. the case of Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom under the European Convention on Human Rights, in which the Court upheld the procedural bar of immunity in British courts for the government of Kuwait in a civil claim concerning compensation for torture against a British national in Kuwait. Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 362. “Promoting the right to reparation for survivors of torture: What role for a permanent international criminal court?”, REDRESS, London, 1997. CAT/C/SR.294/Add.1, § 23, under E,7 (Committee as a whole). Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, pp. 147-148. A/47/44, § 100. CAT/C/SR.245, § 44 and 47; Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 380. CAT/C/SR.145, § 19; Ingelse, ibid. note 20, pp. 380-381. Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 381. Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 382. HRC general comment 20 (Article 7), ibid. note 61, § 12. Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, pp. 120-121 and 149-150. Amnesty International, ibid. note 128. For a critical discussion of the use of the term “universal jurisdiction” in the context of jurisdiction over an international crime where the alleged offender is present in the territory of the State see: Congo v. Belgium, ibid. note 117, joint separate opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans & Burgenthal. The three judges propose that jurisdiction as provided for inter alia in the respective article of the Convention against Torture is really an “obligatory territorial jurisdiction over persons, albeit in relation to acts committed elsewhere.” (para. 41 of the joint separate opinion) Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 318. Amnesty International, ibid. note 128, chapter V: “Introduction”. Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 131. See for example the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (1971) and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (1973). Whether universal jurisdiction in absentia is accepted in international law outside a few specific areas was disputed in the separate opinion of President Guillaume of the ICJ in the Congo v. Belgium case, ibid. note 117 (para. 16 of the separate opinion). Cf. Judge Van den Wyngaert who, in her dissenting opinion, found: “There is no rule of conventional international law to the effect that universal jurisdiction in absentia is prohibited” (para. 54 of the dissenting opinion), and that “there is no customary international law to this effect either.” (para. 55 of the dissenting opinion) Amnesty International, ibid. note 128, Introduction, p. 43; reference to Michael P. Scharf, “Application of Treaty-Based Universal Jurisdiction to Nationals of Non-Party States”, p. 35, New Eng. L. Rev. pp. 363, 379382 (2001). See also Michael P. Scharf, “The ICC’s Jurisdiction over Nationals of Non-Party States”, in Sarah Sewall & Carl Kaysen (eds.), “The United States and the International Criminal Court: National Security and International Law”, p. 213 (Lanham/Boulder/New York/Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, and Washington, DC: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2000). Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 318. CAT/C/SR.354, § 39. In Article 27: “This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or par-