transferring and/or removing the judges trying the case, namely the chief examining magistrate and the President of the Indictment Division, the State party reminds the Committee that the President of the Indictment Division is primus inter pares in a threeperson court and is thus in no position to impose his or her views. The other two members of the Indictment Division were not affected by the reassignment of judges, which in any case was an across-the-board measure. treaty, by the other party”, and that the Convention cannot be applied as long as Senegal has not taken prior legislative measures. The Court adds that ratification of the Convention obliges each State party to take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4, or to extradite perpetrators of torture. 7.11 Proceedings were brought against Hissène Habré. However, since the Convention against Torture is not self-executing, Senegal, in order to comply with its commitments, promulgated Act N° 96-16 of 28 August 1996 enacting article 295 of the Criminal Code. The principle aut dedere aut judicare comprises the obligation to prosecute or to extradite in an efficient and fair manner. In this regard, Senegalese legislators have endorsed the argument of Professor Bassiouni, according to whom “[t]he obligation to prosecute or extradite must, in the absence of a specific convention stipulating such an obligation, and in spite of specialists’ arguments to this effect, be proved to be part of customary international law”. 7.5 It is also important to bear in mind that any country is free to organize its institutions as it sees fit in order to ensure their proper functioning. 7.6 The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by the Constitution and the law. One such guarantee is oversight of the profession and rules of conduct of the judiciary by the Higher Council of the Judiciary, whose members are judges, some of them elected and others appointed. Appeals may be lodged when the appointing authority is accused of having violated the principle of the independence of the judiciary. 7.12 Pursuant to article 4 of the Convention, torture is classified in the Senegalese Criminal Code as an international crime arising from jus cogens. It should be noted that Senegal is aware of the need to amend its legislation; however, under the Convention a State party is not bound to meet its obligations within a specific time frame. 7.7 A basic element of judicial independence is that judges may appeal against decisions affecting them, and that the executive is duty-bound not to interfere in the work of the courts. Judges’ right of appeal is not merely theoretical. 7.8 The Council of State did indeed revoke a number of judges’ appointments on 13 September 2001, considering that they failed to apply a basic safeguard designed to protect trial judges and thereby ensure their independence, namely the obligation to obtain people’s prior consent before assigning them to new positions, even by means of promotion. On the violation of article 7 of the Convention 7.13 Since the Convention is not self-executing, in order to establish universal jurisdiction over acts of torture it is necessary to pass a law establishing the relevant procedure and substantive rules. 7.14 While the Committee has stressed the need for States parties to take appropriate legislative measures to ensure universal jurisdiction over crimes of torture, the manner in which this procedure is accomplished cannot be dictated. Senegal is engaged in a very complex process that must take account of its status as a developing State and the ability of its judicial system to apply the rule of law. 7.9 It must be acknowledged that the Senegalese judiciary is genuinely independent. Criminal proceedings necessarily culminate in decisions which, unfortunately, cannot satisfy all the parties. The judicial investigation is a component of criminal procedure and, by its very nature, is subject to all the safeguards provided for in international instruments. In the present case, the parties benefited from conditions recognized as ensuring fair dispensation of justice. Where no legal provision exists, proceedings cannot be pursued without violating the principle of legality; that was confirmed by the Court of Cassation in its ruling of 20 March 2001. 7.15 The State party points out that the difficulty of ensuring the absolute application of universal jurisdiction is commonly acknowledged. It is therefore normal to provide for different stages of its application. the absence of domestic 7.16 However, codification of universal jurisdiction has not allowed Hissène Habré complete impunity. Senegal applies the principle aut dedere aut judicare. Any request for judicial assistance or cooperation is considered benignly and granted in so far as the law permits, particularly when the request relates to the implementation of an international treaty obligation. On the violation of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention 7.10 In its ruling on the Hissène Habré case, the Court of Cassation considered that “duly ratified treaties or agreements have, once they are published, an authority higher than that of laws, subject to implementation, in the case of each agreement or 104