CAT/C/67/D/813/2017 take measures to exercise jurisdiction “when the alleged offender is a national of the State”.26 The “territory of a State” is not intended as being limited to its physical or geographical extension, but also as extending extraterritorially to include the State’s personal jurisdiction over persons in detention.27 The complainant argues that the decision in Hicks v. Australia is not relevant in the present case, given the absolute and non-derogable character of the prohibition of torture, accepted as customary international law. Moreover, the interrogation at Guantanamo Bay carried out by the Belgian federal counter-terrorism investigators in their official capacity qualifies as intelligence activities carried out by Belgium which fully engage that State’s responsibility.28 7.6 As regards the argument that the Belgian authorities had no means of having the complainant released before the agreement dated 20 November 2005,29 nor any direct or indirect authority, de facto or de jure, to obtain his transfer from Guantanamo Bay, the complainant reiterates that the State party has violated its obligations under article 2 (1) and (2) of the Convention. The Belgian authorities knew that acts of torture were being perpetrated against the complainant, a Belgian national, while he was detained at Guantanamo Bay, but failed to take any action to prevent or stop the torture of the complainant, including, at the very least, requesting his repatriation. In fact, Belgian authorities participated in the unlawful interrogation and related torture of the complainant by the United States, as the Belgian investigators immediately reported any information gathered from the complainant to the United States authorities. In general, the interrogations conducted by the Belgian investigators at Guantanamo Bay were in no way prompted by the purpose of having the complainant released or transferred or checking on his well-being. 7.7 Furthermore, the complainant refutes the State party’s allegation that the Belgian authorities had no reason to believe that the United States was torturing the complainant, pointing out that the Committee warned Belgium as early as in November 2001 of its nonderogable obligation as a State party to the Convention, in light of its various responses to the events of 11 September 2001.30 As explained earlier, Belgian authorities were aware of the arrest of the complainant by Pakistani authorities and of his transfer into United States custody. Belgium was also promptly informed about the unlawful circumstances of his detention at Guantanamo Bay. Additionally, it knew that the United States was attempting to skirt its international obligations when it transferred detainees to non-United States territory and declared long-standing treaties and principles of humanitarian law nullified. 7.8 Regarding failure to take any action to prevent or stop the torture of the complainant, Belgium describes a number of visits and interrogations and frequent interactions with United States authorities carried out by Belgian officials, who insisted that they were all “in favour” of the complainant and had the objective of having him released or transferred. In particular, the State party emphasizes that the federal counter-terrorism investigator Mr. Clareboets shared information from his interrogations of the complainant at Guantanamo Bay with both United States and Belgian authorities in order to gain favour for the transfer or repatriation of the complainant. It would seem inexplicable that so many alleged diplomatic efforts, carried out over three years, did not succeed in securing the transfer or release of the complainant from detention at Guantanamo Bay. It appears that Belgium failed to take any meaningful measures to prevent its own authorities or other persons acting in an official capacity from consenting to or acquiescing in acts of torture or ill-treatment perpetrated at Guantanamo Bay, and in fact participated in the complainant’s torture by interrogating him, in violation of article 2 of the Convention. 26 27 28 29 30 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2, paras. 16 and 24. Human Rights Committee, López Burgos v. Uruguay, communication No. 52/1979, paras. 12.1–12.3; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 10. CAT/C/USA/CO/2, para. 17. While the complainant referred to 20 November 2005, he may have meant 20 April 2005 (see footnotes 5 and 6 above). Statement of the Committee (CAT/C/XXVII/Misc.7) of 22 November 2001. 11