A/HRC/4/33 page 14 State), or to the flag State,13 or to a State exercising jurisdiction on the basis of the active or passive nationality principle.14 But extradition is only possible on the basis of an extradition request from any of the States mentioned in article 5 (1). If none of these States requests an extradition, the State where the alleged torturer is present (the forum State) has no legal alternative than to thoroughly investigate the allegations of torture and, if the evidence found seems to be sufficient, to prosecute the person concerned before its criminal courts. If the State where the act of torture allegedly was committed or another State requests extradition, the State where the alleged torturer is present has the choice of freely deciding whether to prosecute or to extradite in accordance with bilateral or multilateral extradition treaties. Since no order of priority had been established among the various grounds of jurisdiction in article 5, there is no legal obligation to extradite the alleged torturer to his or her State of nationality or to the State where the act of torture was committed. On the contrary, in deciding whether or not to extradite, the Government must comply with the principle of non-refoulement as laid down in article 3 and with the purpose of article 5, namely to avoid safe havens for torturers. In other words, if there are any indications that the home State or the State where the act of torture was committed requested extradition for the purpose of shielding the alleged torturer against effective prosecution, such extradition request shall not be granted and the alleged torturer shall be prosecuted under the universal jurisdiction principle. The same holds true if the alleged torturer would be at risk of torture in a State requesting his or her extradition, in particular if he or she belonged to a regime that has later been overthrown, or if a State wishes to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that its nationals had been subjected to torture. 45. The Committee of Eminent African Jurists met, less than a week after the CAT decision, in Addis Ababa and submitted its report in June to the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union.15 It recommended the adoption of an “African option”, i.e. that the former dictator of Chad should be tried by an African State - Senegal or Chad in the first instance, or by any other African country. Senegal was considered to be the “country best suited to try Habré as it is bound by international law to perform its obligations”, but “Chad has the primary responsibility to try and punish Hissène Habré. It should therefore cooperate with 13 States parties are also required to extend their criminal jurisdiction regarding torture to conduct on board ships or aircraft flying its flag (the flag State) regardless of the precise location where the crime is committed. 14 According to the active nationality principle States parties are under a legal obligation to include a provision in their criminal codes which establishes criminal jurisdiction in relation to any act of torture committed by their own nationals abroad. The passive nationality principle authorizes, but does not oblige States parties to establish jurisdiction regarding the crime of torture when the victim is a national of the State party. 15 Cf. the report of the Committee of Eminent African Jurists on the case of Hissène Habré, www.africa-union.org.