CAT/C/56/D/536/2013 violations by Spain because he was not personally and directly affected by the alleged breach in question and was not a civil party to the criminal proceedings in Spain , 30 and found the communication inadmissible. The State party submits that according to Canadian criminal law informants are not a “party” to the prosecution and cannot be said to “accept” or be subject to the jurisdiction of the State party simply by attempting, through representatives, to pursue a criminal prosecution. Furthermore, the State party submits that victims of torture have no personal right to the prosecution of their alleged torturers such that they have standing under article 22 to raise issues of the appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion in any State through which the alleged perpetrator may pass. 4.14 The State party further notes that article 13 of the Convention stops short of guaranteeing to victims a personal right to a criminal prosecution of those they allege to be guilty of torture. Article 13 must be read consistently with the Conv ention as a whole, which makes it clear that States parties retain discretion as to whether to detain an individual for purposes of pursuing an investigation (art. 6) and whether a complaint warrants the laying of charges (art. 7). 4.15 The State party observes that the obligation under article 6 (1) of the Convention is not absolute and that States parties retain a certain amount of discretion in that a State must act only upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant. The State party refers to the opinion of Burghers and Danelius 31 and submits that, upon an examination of the information available, the circumstances may not warrant restricting the liberty of an alleged perpetrator in order to ensure his continued presence. 4.16 The State party further observes that article 6 imposes additional obligations on States parties once an alleged torturer is in custody, including the obligation under paragraph 2 to immediately make a preliminary investigation into the facts. Where an alleged perpetrator is in transit through a State or a temporary visitor rather than someone resident in the State, it is unlikely that the forum State will have undertaken an investigation in advance, proprio motu, in the hope or expectation that the alleged perpetrator might transit through or make a short visit. The State party notes that the facts of this communication are significantly different from those in Guengueng et al., 32 as Mr. Habré was resident in Senegal for many years and the Government of Senegal had a lot of time in which to launch and complete an investigation. 4.17 The State party submits that the investigation of a case of the magnitude of the allegations made by the complainants is a complex matter and pro vides an example where an investigation into war crimes allegations had taken three years to complete. It further submits that, in a common law jurisdiction, any decision on whether to detain an alleged perpetrator in transit through the State will require a consideration of the results of the criminal investigation. The power of arrest is predicated upon reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. As a general rule, no one may be held in detention for more than 24 hours before being brought before a justice. Unless charges are laid within that time period, detention cannot continue. In the Canadian criminal justice system, the investigation must precede the detention. As noted above, in the circumstances of the complaints again st Mr. Bush, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in the independent exercise of its discretion, had not conducted such an investigation. There was no realistic prospect, in October 2011, that sufficient evidence to support a charge against Mr. Bush could 30 31 32 Ibid., para. 6.4. J. Herman Burghers and Hans Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff, 1988), p. 134; Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 144. Guengueng, note 23 above; see also Belgium v. Senegal. 11