E/CN.4/1998/38 page 46 229. The Special Rapporteur has no illusions that the proposed court will offer a panacea to problems of impunity at the national level. It will take time for the institution to come into existence and be applicable to all States. Nor can it be expected to have the resources to try all offenders. In many cases, the court will not have the suspects in its hands. It is therefore necessary to look to national criminal jurisdictions to play a major role in imposing justice. However, the national jurisdictions do not need to be territorial, that is, of the State where the crime was committed. Indeed, it is the failure of territorial jurisdiction that is the problem. In respect of the crimes under consideration, such as torture, universal jurisdiction is applicable, that is, jurisdiction exercised on the basis simply of custody. 230. As regards grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and acts of torture committed in a State party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, States are required to bring to justice any perpetrators they find within their jurisdiction, regardless of their nationality or that of their victim(s) or of where they committed the crime, if they do not extradite them to another country wishing to exercise jurisdiction. 231. In respect of other pertinent crimes under international law, States are in any event permitted to exercise such jurisdiction. The problem is that, all too often, they have not amended their national legislation to permit their law enforcement authorities and institutions for the administration of justice to act accordingly. This means that the perpetrators may escape justice completely. It is especially unfortunate when the State having custody of the individual can neither return the person to his or her country of origin for fear of the person’s being tortured or otherwise persecuted, nor send him or her to another country because of similar fears. 232. The Special Rapporteur, therefore, urges all States to review their legislation with a view to ensuring that they can exercise criminal jurisdiction over any person in their hands suspected of torture or, indeed, of any crime falling within the notions of war crimes or crimes against humanity as understood above. 233. He would also hope that the United Nations programme of advisory services and technical assistance would have the capacity to provide States with any technical assistance they would need in developing appropriate legislative amendments to give effect to this recommendation. 234. Needless to say, neither an international criminal jurisdiction nor universal State jurisdiction is a wholly satisfactory solution to the problem of impunity. The Special Rapporteur can only reaffirm his view that States should refrain from granting or acquiescing in impunity for human rights crimes at the national level, such impunity itself constituting a violation of international law. The recommendations concerning international and universal jurisdiction could at least make a dent in that impunity, so that perpetrators may feel that, whatever protection they have in the countries where they have committed their crimes, they will have no safe haven elsewhere. -----