CAT/C/56/D/536/2013 3.3 The complainants submit that the State party has violated article 5 (2) of the Convention by failing to take all measures necessary to ensure that jurisdiction was properly established and/or exercised when an alleged torturer was present in its territory. The State party did not extradite him either. 3.4 The complainants submit that the State party has violated article 6 (1) of the Convention by failing to take Mr. Bush into custody or to tak e other legal measures to ensure his presence following an examination of the evidence provided to Canadian officials, including the draft indictment, the information filed by the complainants and the supporting materials thereto. 3.5 The complainants maintain that the present case demonstrates a failure by the State party to abide by its obligations under the Convention to initiate proceedings when a torture suspect is present in its territory. This failure serves as a serious challenge to the effectiveness of the Convention and obstructs its goal of ending impunity for torture. In failing to prosecute Mr. Bush, the State party undermined its stated commitment to combat torture, ignored the jurisdictional authority provided by the Criminal Code and violated its obligations under the Convention. 3.6 The complainants submit that when a private prosecution was launched, the well-documented case was blocked almost immediately. Given that the Attorney General of British Columbia brought an end to the prosecution within hours after it was filed, it is clear that the extensive evidence in the case was not even reviewed, in violation of article 6 of the Convention. Furthermore, the State party ’s obligation to extradite or prosecute suspected torturers within its juri sdiction cannot be ignored on the basis of political expediency, as it appears was done in this situation, in violation of article 7 of the Convention. 3.7 The complainants submit that by failing to prosecute Mr. Bush, the State party denied survivors an important opportunity to seek accountability and justice for the torture they suffered. 3.8 The complainants refer to the Committee’s jurisprudence in Guengueng et al. v. Senegal, 23 where the Committee found that a State party had violated its obligations under articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention by not prosecuting a former Head of State for ordering acts of torture. State party’s observations on admissibility 24 4.1 In a letter dated 8 October 2013, the State party submitted that while the exercise of extended criminal jurisdiction by States parties to the Convention is an effective weapon in the fight against impunity, it does not displace obligations of procedural fairness and natural justice owed to persons alleged to have committed crimes. The text of the Convention as a whole makes it clear that criminal prosecution should be pursued only when sufficient evidence is available such that it is possible to respect the rights embedded in a fair criminal process. 4.2 The State party submits that articles 5-7 of the Convention must be read together and in relation to the treaty as a whole. It notes that the obligation to proceed ex officio with a criminal investigation into alleged acts of torture rests with the State where the crimes were committed. The Convention obligation of a State to investigate allegations of torture committed by a foreign perpetrator in another State arises only with the presence of the alleged perpetrator in territory under its jurisdiction. The State party further submits that the obligation under article 6 to take measures to ensure the 23 24 Communication No. 181/2001, decision adopted on 17 May 2006. The parties to the communication have submitted arguments regarding both the admissibility and the merits, but only the arguments pertaining to the admissibility are included in the present text. 7