comply with the Convention,”8 measures that may be political or legislative; presented to the Committee solely for the purpose of describing the background to the complaints lodged in Senegal.  The State party should either extradite Hissène Habré or submit the case to the competent authorities for the institution of criminal proceedings; 5.2 The complainants go on to observe that the State party’s interpretation of the expression “subject to its jurisdiction”, appearing in article 22 of the Convention would effectively render any appeal to the Committee on Torture meaningless.  If the State party neither tries nor extradites Hissène Habré, it should compensate the complainants for the injury suffered, by virtue inter alia of article 14 of the Convention. The complainants also consider that, if necessary, the State party should itself pay this compensation in lieu of Hissène Habré, following the principle established by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Osman v. United Kingdom;9 5.3 In this connection, the complainants point out that article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is drafted in the same terms as article 22 of the Convention and has on several occasions been discussed by the Human Rights Committee, which has interpreted the clause in an objective, functional manner: an individual should be considered subject to the jurisdiction of a State if the alleged violations result from an action by that State. It matters little whether the author of the communication is, for example, a national of that State or resides in its territory. 10 In the Ibrahima Gueye et al. v. France case, the complainants, of Senegalese nationality and living in Senegal, were found by the Human Rights Committee to be subject to French jurisdiction in the matter of pensions payable to retired soldiers of Senegalese nationality who had served in the French army prior to the independence of Senegal, although the authors were not generally subject to French jurisdiction. 11 The fact of being subject to the jurisdiction of a State within the meaning of article 22 of the Convention must be determined solely on the basis of consideration of the facts alleged in the complaint.12  The State party should compensate the complainants for the costs they have incurred in the proceedings in Senegal; and  Pursuant to article 111, paragraph 5, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the State party should inform the Committee within 90 days of the action it has taken in response to the Committee’s views. The State party’s admissibility observations 4. On 19 June 2001, the State party transmitted to the Committee its observations on the admissibility of the communication. It maintains that the communication could be considered by the Committee only if the complainants were subject to the jurisdiction of Senegal. The torture referred to by the complainants was suffered by nationals of Chad and is presumed to have been committed in Chad by a Chadian. The complainants are not, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the State party within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention since, under Senegalese law, in particular article 699 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a complaint lodged in Senegal against such acts cannot be dealt with by the Senegalese courts, whatever the nationality of the victims. The State party is consequently of the opinion that the communication should be declared inadmissible. 5.4 It follows, in the present case, that the complainants should be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the State party inasmuch as the facts alleged against Senegal under the Convention concern judicial proceedings before the Senegalese courts. Thus, contrary to the contention of the State party, it matters little that the torture occurred in another country or that the victims are not Senegalese nationals. To establish that the complainants are subject to Senegalese jurisdiction in the present instance, one has only to establish that the communication concerns acts that fell under The complainants’ comments 10 See Primo Jose Essono Mika Miha v. Equatorial Guinea, communication N° 414/1990 submitted to the Human Rights Committee, A/49/40, vol. II (1994), annex IX, part O (pp. 96–100). The complainants also point out that the nationality of the author of a communication is not sufficient to establish that the author is subject to that State’s jurisdiction (see H.v.d.P. v. Netherlands, communication N° 217/1986, A/42/40 (1987), annex IX, part C (pp. 185–186), para. 3.2. 11 Communication N° 196/1985, A/44/40 (1989), annex X, part B (pp. 189–195). 12 See Sophie Vidal Martins v. Uruguay, communication N° 57/1979, A/37/40 (1982), annex XIII (pp. 157–160). 5.1 In a letter dated 19 July 2001, the complainants first stress that, contrary to what is indicated by the State party, the substance of the alleged violation by Senegal is not the torture they underwent in Chad but the refusal of the Senegalese courts to act upon the complaint lodged against Hissène Habré. The incidents of torture were 8 Communication N° 34/1995, Seid Mortesa v. Switzerland (para. 11). 9 ECHR/87/1997/871/1083, 28 October 1998. 102