CAT/C/56/D/536/2013 continuing presence of an alleged perpetrator is not absolute. Article 6 (1) recognizes that there may be occasions when the circumstances do not warrant ensuring the continued presence of an individual for the purpose of criminal proceedings. 4.3 The State party submits that its actions in relation to the visit of former President Bush were not inconsistent with its obligations under the Convention, highlighting the reasonable application of both police investigative discretion and prosecutorial discretion in establishing whether to follow up on the complaint filed by the complainants. The State party asserts that no prosecution could go forward on the basis of the information package assembled by the complainants because it did not meet the evidentiary burden required to lay charges or obtain a conviction. Most of the publicly available information is not evidence admissible in a Canadian criminal trial. The State party submits that at the relevant time its police services did not have access to other evidence sufficient to warrant criminal charges against Mr. Bush for torture. The State party notes that although some of the alleged acts of torture referred to in the present communication occurred outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, the acts of Mr. Bush relevant to the allegations against him were executive acts, any evidence of which would exist only in the United States. In the absence of a reasonable expectation of assistance from the United States for an investigation into the allegations against Mr. Bush, the State party had no basis on which to take him into custody; his detention for the purposes of article 6 was not warranted. 4.4 The State party argues that the communication is without merit as it does not establish any violation of the Convention by the State party. Canadian law criminalizes torture and provides extraterritorial jurisdiction over the crime of torture consistent with its obligations under article 5 of the Convention. The laws and practice of the State party foster accountability for perpetrators of serious crimes such as torture. The State party submits that, as required by article 4 of the Convention, it has enacted the crime of torture in its criminal law, under section 269.1 of the Criminal Code. Consistent with the obligations under article 5 (2) of the Convention, the Criminal Code of Canada extends prescriptive and adjudicative jurisdiction over the crime of torture where the offence occurs outside Canada and neither the victim nor the alleged offender is a citizen of Canada. 4.5 The State party submits that, according to section 504 of the Criminal Code, anyone may initiate a private prosecution by laying information in r espect of an indictable offence. The relevant judge must hold a hearing to confirm the charges, at which the allegations and evidence are examined to determine if they warrant the issuance of a summons or warrant for the arrest of the accused. The Attorney General must be given a copy of the information and notice of the time of the hearing. The procedure for private prosecutions is governed by section 507.1 of the Code. Private individuals who lay information must have reasonable grounds to believe that th e person accused has committed an indictable offence, but they are not bound by the public law duties that apply to either police services or public prosecutors and do not have to meet a threshold of reasonable prospect of conviction. As private prosecutio ns may be subject to abuse, Crown prosecutors (on behalf of the relevant Attorney General) must receive a copy of the information and be given the opportunity to attend a hearing before the judge may issue a summons or warrant for the arrest of the accused. In busy jurisdictions, a court often faces delays of some weeks or months in the scheduling of hearings. Where the consent of the Attorney General is required within eight days for a prosecution to proceed, as was the case here, it is prudent for the informant to obtain that consent prior to the laying of an information. Crown prosecutors may intervene in a private prosecution, may take over its conduct, may direct a stay of the private prosecution, or may take no action. 8