1.2.3.1 Universal jurisdiction Article 5 of the UNCAT provides: 1 UN TREATY BODIES While most of the other specific measures required under the UNCAT have been found by the Human Rights Committee to apply in parallel under Article 7 of the ICCPR, this is not the case for the requirement to establish and exercise universal jurisdiction over acts of torture, which is provided for only in the UNCAT.82 However, permissive universal jurisdiction, meaning that all States have the legal capacity, but not the obligation, to exercise universal jurisdiction over the crime of torture, probably now constitutes a norm of customary international law.83 “1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases: (a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State; (b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State; (c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate. 2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph I of this article. 3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.“ Though Article 5 rarely arises in the jurisprudence of the CAT, some clarification of this Article was given in Roitman Rosenmann v Spain, a case concerning Spain’s unsuccessful request that the UK government extradite former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to face prosecution in Spain for the torture of Spanish citizens in Chile during his rule. The Committee observed that, while States Parties possess extraterritorial jurisdiction over acts of torture As with Article 4, this Article is limited in its application to torture, and does not apply as regards other forms of ill-treatment. This was confirmed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in its judgement in Prosecutor v Furund~ija (1998), op. cit., §156. See also Nigel Rodley, The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law, 2nd ed., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1997, p. 107. For a discussion of the sometimes related issue of diplomatic immunity, see Antonio Cassese, “When May Senior State Officials Be Tried for International Crimes? Some Comments on the Congo v Belgium Case” European Journal of International Law, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 853–875, especially at p. 857. 82 83 21