It is clear from the preparatory work on the Convention that the obligation to prosecute is not dependent on whether an extradition request has been made and eventually refused. The drafters of the Convention expressly rejected a proposal to impose such a requirement, which is found in some treaties and national legislation.155 In many cases, the only State having jurisdiction under Article 5 §1 is the State whose authorities themselves have accepted, or at least tolerated, that torture occurred on its territory and which may accordingly be most reluctant to ask for the extradition of the offenders to bring them to trial. If a request for extradition from such a State were a condition for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the State in whose territory the alleged offender is present, the principle aut dedere aut judicare would only have a very limited application and the effectiveness of the Convention would be considerably weakened.156 If no request for extradition is made or the State decides not to grant a request for extradition, the case must be submitted to the prosecuting authorities. There are no further options: This submission must take place.157 It is clear that the purpose of the submission is the prosecution and, where appropriate, conviction of the suspected torturer.158 Any restrictions in national legislation on the scope of the obligation to prosecute with respect to torture and ancillary crimes are contrary to the Convention.159 However, the possibility of prosecution may be limited if jurisdictional immunities in international law are enjoyed by alleged offenders, as discussed under Article 5 §2. No time limit is indicated for extradition requests, which means that the holding State has a certain discretion. However, it must make a judgment based on what is fair and reasonable. Postponement of decisions is contrary to the overall object and purpose of the Convention. The CAT has expressed criticism in situations involving national amnesties and impunity161 and stressed that in such situations the Convention must prevail over national laws resulting in impunity for torturers. Thus, it must be assumed that the duty to prosecute under the Convention extends to alleged offenders who may have been granted amnesty from criminal prosecution elsewhere.162 Military personnel in active service should not be shielded from prosecution by a military court. Military personnel who have been accused of gross human rights violations during active service should be tried under ordinary criminal courts. Police officers accused of torture should be prevented from taking part in activities such as interrogation and other duties where the risk of their repeating the crime is present. § 2. The prosecuting authority in a State Party is obliged to make its decision on whether to prosecute in the same way as in the case of any ordinary crime of a II. INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES 1–16 OF THE CONVENTION 2. ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS Prosecution can only take place after it has become clear that no extradition will take place (if a request for extradition is not granted or if no such request is made).160 45