In 2000 the complainants lodged a complaint against Hissène Habré in Senegal, where he was residing since December 1990. On 3 February 2000, an examining magistrate charged him with being an accomplice to acts of torture and opened an inquiry for crimes against humanity. On 4 July 2000, the Indictment Division of the Dakar Court of Appeal dismissed the charges against Hissène Habré on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, a decision which was later confirmed by the Court of Cassation. Before the Committee, the complainants alleged a violation by Senegal of article 5, paragraph 2 and article 7 of the Convention, and requested compensation. Subsequently, on 19 September 2005, a Belgian judge issued an international arrest warrant against Hissène Habré, charging him with genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and other violations of international humanitarian law. On the same date, Belgium made an extradition request to Senegal. The case was brought by Senegal to the attention of the Assembly of the African Union in January 2006, who decided to set up a committee of eminent jurists to consider all aspects of the case and possible options for trial. In its Decision, the Committee noted that the State party had not contested the fact that it had not taken the measures referred to in article 5, paragraph 2 of the Convention, according to which each State party shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over torture offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him. Consequently, the Committee found that the State party had not fulfilled its obligations under such provision. The Committee also held that the State party cannot invoke the complexity of its legal processes as a justification for its failure to comply with its obligations under article 7 of the Convention. At the time when the complaint was submitted to the Committee, the State party had an obligation to prosecute Hissène Habré for alleged acts of torture, unless it could be proved that there was not sufficient evidence to do so. Subsequently, since 19 September 2005, the State party was in another situation covered under article 7, and had the choice of proceeding with the extradition if it decided not to submit the case to its own judicial authorities for prosecution. By refusing both options the State party had failed to fulfil its obligations under article 7 of the Convention. 73. In complaints Nos. 256/2004 (M.Z. v. Sweden) and 278/2005 (A.E. v. Switzerland) the complainants claimed violations of article 3 of the Convention by the respective States, should they be returned to their countries after being refused asylum. The Committee held, however, that the complainants had not demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that their return to such countries would expose them to a real, specific and personal risk of torture, and, therefore, no violations of the Convention were found. 74. Also at its thirty-sixth session, the Committee decided to declare inadmissible complaints Nos. 248/2004 (A.K. v. Switzerland) and 273/2005 (A.T. v. Canada). In both cases the complainants claimed violations of article 3 of the Convention. However, the Committee concluded that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex VIII, section B, to the present report. D. Follow-up activities 75. At its twenty-eighth session, in May 2002, the Committee against Torture revised its rules of procedure and established the function of a Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints submitted under article 22. At its 527th meeting, on 16 May 2002, the Committee decided that the Rapporteur shall engage, inter alia, in the following activities: monitoring compliance with the Committee’s decisions by sending notes verbales to States parties enquiring 86