A/HRC/4/33 page 12 wording of article 5 (2) and the travaux préparatoires clearly indicate that States parties have a legal obligation to take the necessary legislative, executive and judicial measures to establish universal jurisdiction over the offence of torture, as defined in article 1 of the Convention. This means, in particular, that States are not permitted to make the exercise of universal jurisdiction dependent on any legal act of another State. All attempts by States during the drafting of the Convention to establish an order of priority among the different grounds of jurisdiction mentioned in article 5 or to make universal jurisdiction dependent upon a request for extradition by another State were rejected by well-informed decisions arrived at after extensive discussions.4 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” was also explicitly confirmed by the landmark decision of the Committee against Torture in the Habré case in 2006.5 The Hissène Habré case 43. The case of Guengueng et al. v. Senegal, which concerns the lack of proper legislative, executive and judicial measures taken by Senegalese authorities in relation to the former dictator of Chad, Hissène Habré, is the first case in which the Committee has found a violation of article 5 (2). The Habré case is a perfect example of a Government’s resistance to implement its obligation under the Convention to establish universal jurisdiction.6 That torture was systematically practised under the Habré regime during the 1980s seems to be beyond doubt and has been established, inter alia, by the Chadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1992. In the wake of the Pinochet case, the Chadian Association for the Promotion and defence of Human Rights, with the assistance of Human Rights Watch - above all, Reed Brody7 - and the Dakar-based African Assembly for the Defence of Human Rights, carefully gathered evidence and in January 2000 filed a criminal complaint in Dakar where rather only an authorization under the Convention and that such an obligation would only come into play in case of an extradition request. See Manfred Nowak commenting on this case in Falter, Ministerielle Verwirrungen, 27 August 1999. For press reports of this case, see A.P. Worldstream, Green Party official files criminal complaint against ailing Iraqi official, 16 August 1999; Schlögel verteidigt Visum aus ‘humanitären Gründen - Grüne zeigen Saddam Husseins Stellvertreter an, Der Standard, 17 August 1999; Washington Post, “U.S. steps up efforts to prosecute top Iraqis”, 28 October 1999. 4 See H.J. Burgers and H. Danelius, United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Kluwer, 1988), pp. 57-65, 72-73 and 78-80. 5 Suleymane Guengueng et al. v. Senegal, communication No. 181/2001, (CAT/C/36/D/181/2001) para. 9.7. 6 See e.g. Stephen P. Marks, “The Hissène Habré Case: The Law and Politics of Universal Jurisdiction”, in S. Macedo (ed.), Universal Jurisdiction, p. 131. 7 See e.g. Reed Brody, “The Prosecution of Hissène Habré - An ‘African Pinochet’”, New England Law Review, vol. 35 (2001), p. 321.