III. THEMATIC SUMMARY OF SOME CENTRAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE CONVENTION The purpose of this section is to summarise some of the fundamental issues pertaining to the Convention. The list of issues singled out for discussion is admittedly purely subjective, and it does not pretend to be in any way exhaustive. The summaries will not include any information beyond that already presented in the article-by-article analysis of the previous section, but it will present that information according to themes, rather than according to articles. Universal jurisdiction is generally described as the ability to prosecute persons present in the territory of a State for crimes committed outside the State’s territory which are not linked to that State by the nationality of the suspect or of the victim or by harm to the State’s own national interests.220 The Convention against Torture is the first treaty to provide universal jurisdiction with regard to the offence of torture outside the context of an armed conflict. The system was inspired by various earlier treaties against aircraft hijacking, hostage-taking, and the protection of diplomats.221 There are a number of legal, philosophical, and moral rationales which have been advanced in support of the exercise of universal jurisdiction over international crimes, including the crime of torture. These rationales include the threat these crimes pose to the international legal fabric as well as to the national legal fabric in States where suspects are found without steps being taken to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute or extradite them. These crimes are likewise considered as an attack on the fundamental legal values shared by the international community and, in some cases, the threat they pose to international peace and security.222 An essential purpose of the Convention is to ensure that a torturer does not escape the consequences of his or her acts by going to another country.223 Thus, the Convention provides a system under which the international criminal —the torturer— can find no safe haven. As with previous conventions against terrorism224, the Convention provides that the country where the suspected offender happens to be shall either extradite him or her for the purpose of prosecution or proceed against him or her on the basis of its own criminal law. It should be noted that the provision does not prescribe the establishment of universal jurisdiction in absentia, meaning that States are not obliged under the Convention to establish jurisdiction over cases not falling under Article 5 §1, where the alleged offender is not present in the territory of the State.225 III. THEMATIC SUMMARY OF SOME CENTRAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE CONVENTION 1. UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION 1. UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION 63