freedom, aut dedere aut prosequi, as well as by the obligation to prosecute.”6 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. 3.9 The complainants stress that the Committee itself, when considering the third periodic report of the United Kingdom concerning the Pinochet case, recommended “initiating criminal proceedings in England, in the event that the decision is made not to extradite him. This would satisfy the State party’s obligations under articles 4 to 7 of the Convention and article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969.”7 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. 3 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”.4 3.10 While in its second periodic report to the Committee it described in detail the mechanism for implementing article 7 in its territory, the State party has neither prosecuted nor extradited Hissène Habré, and this the complainants consequently regard as a violation of article 7 of the Convention. Compensation 3.11 The complainants state that they have been working for over 10 years to prepare a case against Hissène Habré and that the latter’s presence in the State party together with the existence of international commitments binding upon Senegal have been decisive factors in the institution of proceedings against him. The decision by the authorities of the State party to drop these proceedings has therefore caused great injury to the complainants, for which they are entitled to seek compensation. 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. 5 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 human rights conventions, drawing as it does on the models of collective security of Tokyo and The Hague, dominated by the principle of jurisdictional 3.12 In particular, the complainants request the Committee to find that:  By discontinuing the proceedings against Hissène Habré, the State party has violated article 5, paragraph 2, and article 7 of the Convention;  The State party should take all necessary steps to ensure that Senegalese legislation complies with the obligations deriving from the above-mentioned provisions. The complainants note in this connection that, while the findings of the Committee are only declaratory in character and do not affect the decisions of the competent national authorities, they also carry with them “a responsibility on the part of the State to find solutions that will enable it to take all necessary measures to 3 See the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture (A/51/44, para. 117). 4 CAT/C/SR.249, para. 44. 5 Cherif Bassiouni and Edward Wise, Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997), p. 159. 6 Marc Henzelin, Le principe de l’universalité en droit pénal international. Droit et obligation pour les Etats de poursuivre et juger selon le principe de l’universalité, Helbing and Lichtenhahn, eds. (Bruylant, 2000), p. 349. 7 Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture (A/54/44, para. 77 (f)). 101