UN TREATY BODIES 1 committed against their nationals, Article 5(1)(c) establishes “a discretionary faculty rather than a mandatory obligation to make, and insist upon, an extradition request.”84 However, the Committee, recalling that one of the objects of the UNCAT is to avoid impunity for torture, did clarify that “the Convention imposes an obligation [on a State Party] to bring to trial a person, alleged to have committed torture, who is found in its territory.”85 This obligation applies both where there is no extradition request, and where the State refuses to extradite the person; it therefore does not depend on the prior existence of such a request.86 Furthermore, where the State on whose territory the suspect is present does not prosecute, refusal to comply with an extradition request will itself amount to a breach of its obligations under UNCAT.87 Thus, the UNCAT requires States Parties either to exercise their jurisdiction to prosecute an individual suspected of torture, or to extradite that individual to a State where he will be prosecuted. It thus goes further than customary international law, which permits the exercise of universal jurisdiction but does not require it, in making the exercise of universal jurisdiction mandatory for States Parties. The CAT has increasingly focussed on this issue in its discussions with State Parties, and now systematically includes it its Concluding Observations a recommendation that States Parties who have not yet introduced legislation providing for universal jurisdiction for the crime of torture do so.88 Roitman Rosenmann v Spain, CAT Communication No. 176/2000, 30 April 2002, §6.7. This Communication was declared inadmissible, but the CAT nonetheless discussed some of the substantive issues raised. 85 Ibid. This obligation arises in particular under Articles 5(2), and 7(1). Article 7(1) provides that the “State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.” Furthermore, Article 6 provides that States shall take into custody any person on their territory who is alleged to have committed torture. See also CAT, Concluding Observations on the UK, UN Doc. A/54/44, §77(f). 86 Guengueng and Others v Senegal, CAT Communication No. 181/2001, 17 May 2006, §9.7. This case concerned the failure by Senegal to either bring to trial the former Chadian dictator Hissène Habré or to respond positively to an extradition request from Belgium under universal jurisdiction for torture. In 2007, under pressure from the African Union, Senegal set up its own war crimes court to try Habré. 87 Ibid. §9.11. 88 The CAT also considers the effectiveness and scope of any such legislation. For example, in its 2003 Concluding Observations on Belgium, the Committee expressed concern at changes to the rules regarding universal jurisdiction which would allow the Minister of Justice to remove judges from some cases (UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/30/6, 2003, §5(g)). 84 22