legislation necessary Convention. for implementing the has not been challenged—that Hissène Habré has been in the territory of the State party since December 1990. In January 2000, the complainants lodged with an examining magistrate in Dakar a complaint against Hissène Habré alleging torture. On 20 March 2001, upon completion of judicial proceedings, the Court of Cassation of Senegal ruled that “no procedural text confers on Senegalese courts a universal jurisdiction to prosecute and judge, if they are found on the territory of the Republic, presumed perpetrators of or accomplices in acts [of torture] … when these acts have been committed outside Senegal by foreigners; the presence in Senegal of Hissène Habré cannot in itself justify the proceedings brought against him”. The courts of the State party have not ruled on the merits of the allegations of torture that the complainants raised in their complaint. On the violation of article 7 of the Convention 8.10 With regard to the argument that article 7 has not been violated because the State was prepared, if necessary, to extradite Hissène Habré, the complainants maintain that the obligation under article 7 to prosecute Hissène Habré is not linked to the existence of an extradition request. 8.11 The complainants appreciate the fact that Senegal was prepared to extradite Hissène Habré and in this connection point out that on 27 September 2001 President Wade had stated that “if a country capable of holding a fair trial—we are talking about Belgium—wishes to do so, I do not see anything to prevent it”. Nevertheless, this suggestion was purely hypothetical at the time of the present observations since no extradition request had yet been made. 9.4 The Committee also notes that, November 2005, the Indictment Division Dakar Court of Appeal stated that it jurisdiction to rule on Belgium’s request extradition of Hissène Habré. 8.12 On the basis of a detailed examination of the travaux préparatoires, the complainants refute the argument that the State party appears to be propounding, namely that there would be an obligation to prosecute under article 7 only after an extradition request had been made and refused. They also condense long passages from an academic work15 to demonstrate that the State’s obligation to prosecute a perpetrator of torture under article 7 does not depend on the existence of an extradition request. 9.5 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention, “each State Party shall […] 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 […]”. It notes that, in its observations on the merits, the State party has not contested the fact that it had not taken “such measures as may be necessary” in keeping with article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention, and observes that the Court of Cassation itself considered that the State party had not taken such measures. It also considers that the reasonable time frame within which the State party should have complied with this obligation has been considerably exceeded. On the request for financial compensation 8.13 The complainants reject the State party’s claim that they have instituted proceedings in Belgian courts. It is, in fact, other former victims of Hissène Habré who have applied to the Belgian courts. The complainants are not parties to those proceedings. 8.14 The complainants also maintain that there is no risk of double compensation because Hissène Habré can be tried only in one place. 9.6 The Committee is consequently of the opinion that the State party has not fulfilled its obligations under article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Committee’s considerations on the merits 9.1 The Committee notes, first of all, that its consideration on the merits has been delayed at the explicit wish of the parties because of judicial proceedings pending in Belgium for the extradition of Hissène Habré. 9.7 The Committee recalls that, under article 7 of the Convention, “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”. It notes that the obligation to prosecute the alleged perpetrator of acts of torture does not depend on the prior existence of a request for his extradition. The alternative available to the State party under article 7 of the Convention exists only when a request for extradition has been made and puts the State party in the position of having to choose between (a) proceeding with extradition or (b) 9.2 The Committee also notes that, despite its note verbale of 24 November 2005 requesting the State party to update its observations on the merits before 31 January 2006, the State party has not acceded to that request. 9.3 On the merits, the Committee must determine whether the State party violated article 5, paragraph 2, and article 7 of the Convention. It finds—and this 15 on 25 of the lacked for the Henzelin, op. cit. 106