serious nature under the law of that State. This leaves some room for discretion, which is nevertheless subject to certain limitations: The prosecuting authority must ensure that its decisions are in line with the decisions taken with respect to similar serious crimes.163 Standards of evidence should in all circumstances be the same. They should not be applied less strictly for States which have jurisdiction by virtue of the presence of the accused on their territory (Article 5 §2) than for States which have jurisdiction on the basis of where the offence took place, nationality of the accused, or nationality of the victim (Article 5 §1). II. INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES 1–16 OF THE CONVENTION 2. ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS It may be difficult to call witnesses and collect other evidence, in particular where the State in which the offences were committed is not willing to cooperate in investigating the case. The second sentence of this paragraph makes it clear, however, that although the principle of universal jurisdiction has been regarded as an essential element in making the Convention an effective instrument, there has been no intention to have the alleged offenders prosecuted or convicted on the basis of insufficient or inadequate evidence.164 46 Article 7 does not offer any clarity concerning sham trials, where a suspect of torture is prosecuted but given an unusually short sentence or granted pardon or amnesty almost immediately, i.e. cases where it is clear that prosecution was not intended to result in actual punishment. The question is whether a new prosecution in another State in which the suspect shows up would be in conflict with the principle of ne bis in idem (the right not to be tried or punished more than once for the same offence), as guaranteed by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereafter: “ICCPR”). In such situations, the Statute of the ICTY allows for the suspect still to be prosecuted before the Tribunal.165 Under the Convention against Torture, it can be argued that in such cases, the (sham) prosecution cannot be considered to be an “effective measure” against torture as provided by Article 2 §1,166 and indeed the State would be responsible for violating its obligation under Article 2 §1. As no actual prosecution can be deemed to have taken place the first time, there can be no conflict with the principle of ne bis in idem if another State were to prosecute again. § 3. States are obliged to guarantee fair treatment of each person against whom proceedings are instituted in the context of the crimes referred to in Article 4, in all phases of the procedure. This means that the appropriate process guarantees implemented by the State apply to a suspect of torture. If the State is a party to the ICCPR, Articles 9, 10, 14, and 15 similarly apply to a suspect of torture.167 This includes the right not to be arbitrarily detained, the right to a fair trial, and the right to have the case heard before an independent tribunal with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.