CAT/C/56/D/536/2013 complaint is launched and maintain that such an approach would render complaints to the Committee illusory with regard to claims concerning universal juris diction. They also maintain that the State party has provided no support in domestic law for its claim that victims must be present in the territory of Canada to be subject to its jurisdiction. In fact, section 7 (3.7) of the Criminal Code states: “Every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence … shall be deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if … (e) the person who commits the act or omission is, after the commission thereof, p resent in Canada.” This section does not merely give the State party universal jurisdiction over any alleged torturer present in its territory, but actually deems the torture to have been effectively committed in Canada. Presumably, the State party would n ot argue that it does not have jurisdiction over a victim of acts of torture committed in Canada. Therefore, when section 7 (3.7) of the Criminal Code makes any act of torture, wherever committed, the equivalent of torture committed in Canada, the State pa rty has jurisdiction over the victims of any alleged torturer later found in Canada. 5.4 The complainants maintain that the facts of their case are parallel to the facts in Guengueng et al., where the Committee found that the Chadian complainants accepted Senegalese jurisdiction in order to pursue the proceedings against Hissène Habré which they instituted. The complainants in the instant case gave authorization for a private prosecution to be initiated before a Canadian court and therefore accepted the State party’s jurisdiction. A justice of the peace accepted the information and a hearing was scheduled. A provincial government official put an end to the private prosecution the same day it was filed, in conferral with the Public Prosecution Service; the Service did not have any potential charges against Mr. Bush because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had never launched an investigation. When the provincial official shut down the private prosecution, he did so without asking police to conduct the necessar y inquiry under article 6 of the Convention and did not make his own independent assessment of the allegations. The complainants further distinguish the jurisprudence in Rosenmann v. Spain, because there the complainant was asserting a violation of article 5 (1) (c) of the Convention, which contains a level of discretion for the establishment of jurisdiction (“if that State considers it appropriate”) that is not present in article 5 (2). The complainants also maintain that in Rosenmann the issue was whether the complainant had standing to bring the complaint, which is a concept distinct from jurisdiction. 36 State party’s additional observations 6.1 In additional observations dated 11 April 2014, the State party submitted that article 22 (1) of the Convention gives locus standi only to individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the State party against which the complaint is made and reiterated that the complainants have never been subject to its jurisdiction, that in the absence of its jurisdiction over the complainants they lack standing to bring a communication before the Committee and that the Committee lacks competence at law to consider their communication. 6.2 The State party notes that, after the fourth revision of the Committee ’s rules of procedure, the relevant rule (rule 113) no longer includes a reference to the jurisdiction of the State party. It observed, however, that in Agiza v. Sweden, 37 the Committee had acknowledged the importance for the right of complaint of the victim 36 37 The complainants maintain that some torture victims may not have standing to bring a complaint before the Committee even when they might be subject to a State party’s jurisdiction for the purposes of article 22 and refer to Nowak and McArthur, where the issue of standing was distinguished from the issue of “subject to its jurisdiction”. Communication No. 233/2003, decision adopted on 20 May 2005. 13