2. Given that the State party has an obligation to proceed with the trial or extradite Mr. Habré, the same should not be conditional upon the receipt by the State party of financial assistance. The complainants assume that this request is made to ensure that a trial is carried out in the best possible conditions. 3. Irrespective of what the African Union has decided with respect to this affair, it can have no implications as to the State party’s obligation to recognize this affair and to submit it to the competent jurisdiction. On 19 October 2007, counsel expressed concern at the fact that 17 months after the Committee had taken its decision, no criminal proceedings had yet been initiated in the State party and no decision regarding extradition had been taken. He emphasized that time was very important for the victims and that one of the complainants had died as a result of the ill-treatment suffered during Habré’s regime. Counsel requested the Committee to continue engaging the State party under the follow-up procedure. On 7 April 2008, counsel reiterated his concern that despite the passage of 21 months since the Committee’s decision, Mr. Habré has still neither been brought to trial nor extradited. He recalls that the Ambassador, in his meeting with the Special Rapporteur during the November session of the Committee in 2007, indicated that the authorities were waiting for financial support from the international community. Apparently, this request for aid was made in July 2007 and responses were received from, among other countries, the European Union, France, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. These countries indicated that they would be prepared to assist financially as well as technically. The Senegalese authorities assured the victims last November that proceedings would not be held up but to date no date has been fixed for criminal action. 130