CAT/C/36/D/181/2001 page 15 extradition request. At that time, the State party had the choice of proceeding with extradition if it decided not to submit the case to its own judicial authorities for the purpose of prosecuting Hissène Habré. 9.11 The Committee considers that, by refusing to comply with the extradition request, the State party has again failed to perform its obligations under article 7 of the Convention. 9.12 The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, concludes that the State party has violated article 5, paragraph 2, and article 7 of the Convention. 10. In accordance with article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the State party is obliged to adopt the necessary measures, including legislative measures, to establish its jurisdiction over the acts referred to in the present communication. Moreover, under article 7 of the Convention, the State party is obliged to submit the present case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution or, failing that, since Belgium has made an extradition request, to comply with that request, or, should the case arise, with any other extradition request made by another State, in accordance with the Convention. This decision in no way influences the possibility of the complainants’ obtaining compensation through the domestic courts for the State party’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Convention. 11. Bearing in mind that, in making the declaration under article 22 of the Convention, the State party recognized the competence of the Committee to decide whether or not there has been a violation of the Convention, the Committee wishes to receive information from the State party within 90 days on the measures it has taken to give effect to its recommendations. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the French text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] Notes 1 In accordance with rule 103 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, Mr. Guibril Camara did not take part in the Committee’s deliberations on this case. 2 According to the press release, “[t]he Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Mr. Dato Param Cumaraswamy, and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, Sir Nigel Rodley, have expressed their concern to the Government of Senegal over the circumstances surrounding the recent dismissal of charges against Hissène Habré, the former President of Chad. […] The Special Rapporteurs reminded the Government of Senegal of its obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which it is party. They also draw its attention to the resolution adopted this year by the Commission on Human Rights on the question of torture (resolution 2000/43), in which the Commission stressed the general responsibility of all States to examine all allegations of torture and to ensure that those who encourage, order, tolerate or perpetrate such acts be held responsible and severely punished”.