CAT/C/56/D/536/2013 being within the jurisdiction of the State. 38 The State party maintains that in accordance with that decision the victim must have been under the jurisdiction of the State party at some point relevant to the alleged violations and asserts that the complainants in the present case had never been within its jurisdiction. It reiterates that the attempt to initiate private prosecution against Mr. Bush through a representative did not bring the complainants within its jurisdiction. The State party notes 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 non-governmental organization as the person laying the charges, with the complainants listed only as victims of torture. It maintains that the status of a victim does not bring an individual within the jurisdiction of a court in Canada. A person seeking to commence a private prosecution must appear before the judge who receives the information as the laying of criminal charges proceeds by an individual swearing to the truth of the information and any supporting facts; the individual must be within the jurisdiction of the court for purposes of enforcement of any orders against them, inter alia so that they may be held accountable for malicious prosecution. Complainants’ additional comments on the State party’s observations 7.1 In additional observations dated 8 May 2014, the complainants submitted that Mr. Bush was scheduled to return to Canada on 12 May 2014 to appear at an event being held in Toronto. They submitted that in the light of the factual record, previously submitted to the Canadian authorities, the State party must take steps to ensure custody over, investigate and prosecute Mr. Bush. They reiterated that the State party’s obligations under the Convention included preventing and punishing acts of torture and redressing such acts pursuant to articles 5, 6 and 14 of the Convention. Allowing Mr. Bush to be present on Canadian territory without consequence would leave the State party open to the charge of being a “safe haven” for torturers. 7.2 In a letter dated 17 July 2014, the complainants submitted that they agreed that article 22 (1) of the Convention requires the complainants to be subject to the jurisdiction of the State party mentioned in the communication; they referred, however, to the Committee’s decision in Guengueng et al. 39 and argued that when an alleged torturer is present in the territory of a State party, that State’s jurisdiction extends to all victims of the latter. The complainants also reiterated that the filing of a private prosecution 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 ambit of Guengueng et al. They also reiterated that the State party had violated its obligations under article 5 by failing to exercise universal jurisdiction; article 6 by failing to properly examine the information provided by the complainants, failing to take measures to ensure custody over Mr . Bush and failing to commence a preliminary inquiry of the facts; and article 7 by failing to submit the case against Mr . Bush to the competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. State party’s further observations 8. In a letter dated 23 October 2014, the State party referred to its previous submissions and maintained that its arguments applied with equal force to events occurring before and after 2011. 38 39 14 Ibid., para. 13.9. See paras. 6.3 and 6.4.