but it is not limited to such measures. It includes executive and judicial steps to arrest, investigate, prosecute, or extradite.128 In the case of the former President of Chad, Hissène Habrè, the CAT indicated that it did not believe the obligation of the State Party was limited to enacting legislation. Therefore, when the Convention does not expressly state what measures must be taken to establish jurisdiction, the Parties must have intended to require that all types of measures be taken.129 From the wording of Article 5 §2, it is not clear whether the obligation to establish universal jurisdiction is thought to exist only on the basis of the Convention. However, outside the context of an armed conflict, there appears to be insufficient basis in customary international law to assume an obligation on behalf of States not Parties to the Convention to establish universal jurisdiction over the crime of torture.130 Some observers have expressed the view that States may have the authority under international law to establish universal jurisdiction over the crimes of torture, without reference to the Convention. Sir Nigel Rodley stated in 1999 that “It is now hard to imagine a convincing objection to any state’s unilateral choice to exercise jurisdiction [over torture] on a universal basis. Thus, permissive universality of jurisdiction is probably already achieved under general international law.”131 “16. States primarily exercise their criminal jurisdiction on their own territory. In classic international law they normally have jurisdiction in respect of an offence committed abroad only if the offender, or at least the victim, is of their nationality, or if the crime threatens their internal of external security. Additionally, they may exercise jurisdiction in cases of piracy and in the situations of subsidiary universal jurisdiction provided for by various conventions if the offender is present on their territory. But apart from these cases, international law does not accept universal jurisdiction…” Nevertheless, Article 5 §2 imposes an obligation on States to establish jurisdiction over all crimes of torture, irrespective of the status of the alleged offenders. The rationale of the Convention is, after all, that suspects of torture must not be able to find a safe haven, and that any suspect of torture must fear prosecution always and everywhere.132 The CAT has expressed the view that the States’ obligations to bring alleged torturers to justice extend to the highest officials. In direct reference to the case involving the former President of Chile, Pinochet Ugarte, whom the United Kingdom had been requested to extradite to Spain on charges of, inter alia, II. INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES 1–16 OF THE CONVENTION 2. ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS However, this view is disputed by the President of the International Court of Justice, who, in his separate opinion in the Congo v. Belgium case wrote: 39