A/HRC/7/3/Add.1 page 107 Para Country Date Type Mandate Allegations transmitted Government response the basis of the information provided by Südwestrundfunk, and forwarded this to the office of the Public Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice, asking it to examine whether it should potentially take over the matter. This was done in view of the fact that the Public Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice is the competent authority pursuant to section 142a of the Courts Constitution Act (CCA) for criminal prosecution with regard to the offences listed in section 120 (1) and (2) of that Act. Because this list is exhaustive, the Federal Public Prosecutor General can only take over criminal proceedings if there is suspicion of an offence that is listed in section 120 (1) and (2) of the Act. This is due to the fact that under the division of jurisdiction in the German Basic Law, criminal prosecution is fundamentally the remit of the Länder (constituent states of the Federation); section 120 (1) and (2) of the CCA more closely define the exceptional cases of federal jurisdiction referred to in Article 96 paragraph 5 of the Basic Law. The importance of a case on its own cannot give rise to the Federal Public Prosecutor General having jurisdiction. In the present case, the Stuttgart Public Prosecution Office contacted the Federal Public Prosecutor General, because the facts, as they stood, might cover the offence of abduction pursuant to section 234a of the Criminal Code, and could therefore give rise to jurisdiction on the part of the Federal Public Prosecutor General (section 120 (2) first sentence no. 1, in conjunction with section 74a (1) no. 5 of the CCA). As a