A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 denied that certain allegations of torture are fabricated or at least aggravated. But this should not be used as an argument not to investigate them. On the contrary, an impartial investigation is in the interest of Governments which have nothing to hide and which are genuinely interested in the truth. 151. In addition, my experience shows that cases where detainees falsely accuse officials of torture or ill-treatment are much less frequent than instances of police officers and prison guards falsely denying such allegations. While victims of torture run the risk of reprisals if complaining about torture, and certainly more often refrain from lodging a justified complaint than making false allegations, police officers and prison guards certainly have an interest not to tell that they have abused a detainee.88 (c) No safe haven for torturers 152. The establishment and application of various types of jurisdiction include territorial, flag, active and passive nationality, as well as universal jurisdiction to the crime of torture,89 is extremely important for the realization of the concept of no safe haven for torturers. Recognising the exceptional gravity of the crime of torture and that the torturer, like the pirate, the slave trader and the terrorist, is regarded as ‘hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind’,90 as well as the importance of bringing perpetrators to justice, article 5 (2) of the Convention Against Torture establishes the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction as an international obligation of all States parties for the first time in a human rights treaty. The only precondition for the exercise of universal jurisdiction is that the suspected perpetrator must be present on the territory of a State. The provision goes beyond the traditional principles of territorial and national jurisdiction listed in articles 5 (1) (a)-(c) and obliges States parties to exercise jurisdiction over persons of any nationality who are suspected of torture in any country if they are on the territory of the State. It therefore provides a clear and unambiguous obligation for States to take the necessary legislative measures to establish jurisdiction in their domestic criminal codes, which was confirmed by the Committee Against Torture in the Habre case against Senegal, where it was decided that the State’s failure to establish universal jurisdiction (or any other type of jurisdiction envisaged in article 5) constituted a violation of article 5.91 153. In practice, the obligation to exercise universal jurisdiction means that if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person on a State’s territory has committed an act of torture, the State is obliged to take the person into custody or otherwise ensure his or her presence and to conduct a preliminary investigation. If there are no requests for extradition from the States in which the crime was allegedly committed, or to which the suspect or victim belongs, the “forum” State that detained the alleged offender must prosecute him or her. This unusual measure of extensive jurisdictional powers and obligations was applied in order to fight against impunity for perpetrators of torture and to bring them to justice, wherever they may be. 154. However, it is unfortunate that despite this explicit provision in international law, many States have still not established such jurisdiction in their domestic criminal codes, and have proved extremely reluctant to exercise universal jurisdiction against suspected torturers. Looking back over the last twenty years, there have been very few cases in which 88 89 90 91 Nowak and McArthur, CAT Commentary, 413–38. Obligatory universal jurisdiction only applies to torture as defined by article 1, not CIDT. Judgment of the Unites States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit of 30 June 1980 in Filartigav Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, at 890. Guengueng et all v. Senegal, Communication No. 181/2001, paras. 3.2.-3.7.; Nowak and McArthur, 255. 39