CAT/C/56/D/536/2013 never been subject to the jurisdiction of the State party, which is a r equirement for a complaint under article 22 of the Convention; the complainants are not Canadian citizens; and they have not established that any of them were present in the territory of the State party or subject to its jurisdiction at any time relevant t o the complaint. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s submission that the information submitted before a justice of the peace in British Columbia regarding acts of torture committed against the complainants gives the name of a director of a n ongovernmental organization as the person laying the charges, with the complainants listed only as victims of torture, and that the status of victim does not bring an individual within the jurisdiction of a court in Canada, because a person seeking to commence a private prosecution must appear in person before the judge who receives the information and swear to the truth of the information and any supporting facts. 9.6 The Committee notes the complainants’ submission that the State party, by ratifying the Convention, enacting legislation to exercise its jurisdiction over alleged torturers present in its territory and lodging a declaration under article 22 of the Convention, accepted jurisdiction over all victims of alleged torturers present in the State party; and that the fact that a stay was ordered on the private prosecution brought on behalf of and with the permission of the complainants against Mr. Bush, prepared specifically for submission to a Canadian court, brings the case within the jurisdiction of the Committee. 9.7 The Committee recalls its finding that in order to establish whether a complainant is effectively subject to the jurisdiction of the State party against which a communication has been submitted within the meaning of article 22, the Comm ittee must take into account various factors that are not confined to the complainant ’s nationality; in this regard, a decisive factor is whether the complainant has accepted the jurisdiction of a particular State party in order to pursue the proceedings t hat the complainant has initiated against an alleged perpetrator of torture. 40 The Committee observes that the alleged violations of the Convention concern the refusal of the Canadian authorities to apprehend and prosecute the former President of the United States, George W. Bush, despite their obligation to establish universal jurisdiction in accordance with articles 5 (2), 6 (1) and 7 (1) of the Convention. The question before the Committee therefore is whether the complainants in the present case have demonstrated that they were subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. The Committee notes that the complainants maintain that the facts of their case are paralle l 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 had instituted. 41 However, the Committee observes that in the Guengueng case the State party did not dispute that the complainants were the plaintiffs in the proceeding brought against Mr. Habré in Senegal 42 while in the instant case the State party disputes that the complainants were party to the private prosecution brought against Mr. Bush in Canada. 43 This difference between the two cases has to be duly evaluated by the Committee. In the Guengueng case, the Committee concluded that “On the basis of these elements, the Committee is of the opinion that the complainants were indeed subject to the jurisdiction of Senegal in the dispute to which the communication referred 44 and declared the communication admissible. 9.8 However, in the instant case, the Committee observes that the criminal information submitted before a justice of the peace in British Columbia on 18 October 40 41 42 43 44 16 See Guengueng et al. v. Senegal, para. 6.3. Ibid., para. 5.4. Ibid., para. 6.3. Ibid., paras. 6.1 and 6.2. Ibid., para. 6.3.