CAT/C/36/D/181/2001 page 5 measures to be taken by Senegal” and “article 669 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [which enumerates the cases in which proceedings can be brought against foreigners in Senegal for acts committed abroad] has not been amended”. They also note that, while the State party has adopted legislation to include the crime of torture in its Criminal Code in accordance with article 4 of the Convention, it has not adopted any legislation relating to article 5, paragraph 2, despite the fact that this provision is the “cornerstone” of the Convention, referring in this connection to the travaux préparatoires. 3.3 Moreover, the complainants point out, whereas the Court of Cassation states that “the presence in Senegal of Hissène Habré cannot in itself justify the proceedings”, it is precisely the presence of the offender in Senegalese territory, that constitutes the basis under article 5 of the Convention for establishing the jurisdiction of the country concerned. 3.4 The complainants consider that the ruling of the Court of Cassation is contrary to the main purpose of the Convention and to the assurance given by the State party to the Committee against Torture, that no internal legal provision in any way hinders the prosecution of torture offences committed abroad.3 3.5 The complainants note that, irrespective of article 79 of the Constitution, under which the Convention is directly an integral part of internal Senegalese legislation, it was incumbent on the authorities of the State party to take any additional legislative measures necessary to prevent all ambiguities such as those pointed out by the Court of Cassation. 3.6 The complainants observe that members of the Committee regularly emphasize the need for States parties to take appropriate legislative measures to establish universal jurisdiction in cases of torture. During its consideration of the second periodic report submitted by the State party under article 19 of the Convention, the Committee underlined the importance of article 79 of the Senegalese Constitution, stressing that it should be implemented unreservedly.4 The State party had, moreover, expressly affirmed in its final statement that it “intended to honour its commitments, in the light of the Committee’s conclusions and in view of the primacy of international law over internal law”.5 3.7 The complainants therefore consider that the State party’s failure to make its legislation comply with article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention constitutes a violation of this provision. Violation of article 7 of the Convention 3.8 On the basis of several concordant opinions expressed by members of the British House of Lords in the Pinochet case, the complainants argue that the essential aim of the Convention is to ensure that no one suspected of torture can evade justice simply by moving to another country and that article 7 is precisely the expression of the principle aut dedere aut punire, which not only allows but obliges any State party to the Convention to declare it has jurisdiction over torture, wherever committed. Similarly, the complainants refer to Cherif Bassiouni and Edward Wise, who maintain that article 7 expresses the principle aut dedere aut judicare.6 They also cite a legal opinion according to which “the Convention’s main jurisdictional feature is thus that it does not impose a solely legislative and territorial obligation, in the manner of previous