A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 ensure the provision of compensation through its civil jurisdiction to all victims of torture”.120 From the practice of the Committee, it can therefore be concluded that the establishment of universal civil jurisdiction, while not being obligatory under the Convention, is at least permissive in view of the wording and spirit of article 14. 184. In light of my experience which shows that victims of torture largely lack any effective remedy in States where torture is practised systematically or in a widespread manner, I believe that the procedural element of the right to a remedy under article 14 CAT should be interpreted as having extra-territorial effect, in order to allow victims to seek reparation from the perpetrators in foreign courts. Such an extra-territorial reading of article 14 is necessary to render this provision meaningful in practice. I would also suggest that this reading is only a logical consequence from the broadening of criminal jurisdiction for torture crimes as foreseen in article 5 CAT. Following State parties’ obligation to prosecute perpetrators, who are their own nationals (active nationality principle) under paragraph 1 lit b of this provision, regardless of where the act of torture was committed, victims are in most countries allowed to join the criminal proceedings as private parties to claim damages from their tormenters. In addition, and following the Committee’s doctrine that the right to a remedy and adequate reparation should not be dependent on the outcome of criminal proceedings, victims must also have the possibility to lodge a separate civil law suit against the perpetrator. In my opinion, victims of torture should therefore be enabled to pursue civil damages in all cases where States have established criminal jurisdiction of their domestic courts over the crime of torture, including pursuant to their obligation to establish universal jurisdiction under paragraph 2 of the said Article. Given the close nexus between the duty to criminal prosecution of torture crimes and the right of victims to join the criminal proceedings as civil claimants, I would even go further and suggest that article 14 CAT encourages States to provide victims of torture with a procedural remedy capable of obtaining adequate reparation from the perpetrators to the same extent that States are obliged to establish criminal jurisdiction over torture crimes under the Convention. I therefore encourage States to make the necessary legal and procedural adjustment to their civil justice systems to establish civil jurisdiction of domestic courts over acts of torture committed on foreign territory analogous to existing jurisdiction in criminal cases. 185. Even where domestic courts were able to exercise jurisdiction over extra-territorial acts of torture, cases have been dismissed on the ground of immunity provisions. While the international law on immunities is a complex and evolving field, I would submit that the same principles should be applied to civil liability as have been established for criminal responsibility under international law. We can therefore assume that individuals acting in an official capacity, such as members of the police, military, intelligence service, and other officials responsible for torture, except for acting Heads of States, Ministers of Foreign Affairs and individuals enjoying the protection of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunities are not protected by immunity ratione personae.121 The question of individual liability has to be distinguished from the question of liability of the State for torture committed by its officials. While States bear the primary responsibility for providing a remedy and adequate reparation in relation to torture committed on their own territory, recent case law has confirmed that States can rely on the principle of sovereign immunity before foreign courts in relation to extra-territorial claims for damages.122 The application 120 121 122 A/55/44, emphasis added. International Court of Justice in the Arrest Warrant Case (Democratic Republic of Congo v Belgium, Judgment of 14 February 2002, Nr. 121. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 21st November 2001 in Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (Application No. 35763/97) para. 66; Judgment of the Canadian Court of Appeal for Ontario of 30 June 2004 in Bouzari v Iran, C38295 (2004) ).J.2800 para. 81. 49