...

State party 

SENEGAL

Case

Suleymane Guengueng and others, 181/2001

Nationality and country of removal if applicable

N/A

Views adopted on

17 May 2006

Issues and violations found

Failure to prosecute - articles 5, paragraph 2, and 7.

Interim measures granted and State party response

N/A

Remedy recommended

In pursuance of rule 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee requests the State party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken in response to the views expressed above.

Due date for State party response

16 August 2006

Date of reply

8 March 2007 (had previously responded on 18 August and 28 September 2006).

State party response

On 18 August 2006, the State party denied that it had violated the Convention, and reiterated its arguments on the merits, including its argument on article 5 that under the Convention a State party is not obliged to meet its obligations within a particular time. The extradition request was dealt with under national law applicable between the State party and States with which it does not have an extradition treaty. It stated that any other way of handling this case would have violated national law. The integration of article 5 into domestic law is in its final stage and the relevant text would be examined by the Legislative Authority. To avoid possible impunity, the State party submitted that it had deferred the case to the African Union for consideration, thus avoiding a violation of article 7. As the African Union had not yet considered the case at that point, it would be impossible to provide the complainants with compensation.

On 28 September 2006, the State party informed the Committee that the Committee of Eminent Jurists of the African Union had taken the decision to entrust Senegal with the task of trying Mr. Habré of the charges against him. It stated that its judicial authorities were looking into the judicial feasibility and the necessary elements of a contract to be signed between the State party and the African Union on logistics and finance.

On 7 March 2007, the State party provided the following update. It submitted that on 9 November 2006, the Council of Ministers had adopted two new laws relating to the recognition of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity as well as universal jurisdiction and judicial cooperation. The adoption of these laws fills the legal gap which had prevented the State party from recognizing the Habré case. On 23 November 2006, a working group was set up to consider the necessary measures to be taken to try Mr. Habré in a fair manner. This working group has considered the following: texts of the National Assembly on legal changes to remove obstacles highlighted during the consideration of the request for extradition on 20 September 2005; a framework for the infrastructural, legislative and administrative changes necessary to conform with the African Union=s request for a fair trial; measures to be taken in the diplomatic sphere to ensure cooperation between all of the countries concerned as well as other States and the African Union; security issues; and financial support. These elements were included in a report to the African Union during its eighth session which was held between 29 and 30 January 2007. The report underlined the necessity to mobilize financial resources from the international community.

Complainant=s response

On 9 October 2006, the complainants commented on the State party=s submission of 18 August 2006. They stated that the State party had provided no information on what action it intends to take to implement the Committee=s decision. Even three months after the African Union=s decision that Senegal should try Mr. Habré, the State party had still failed to clarify how it intends to implement the decision.

On 24 April 2007, the complainants responded to the State party=s submission of 7 March 2007. They thanked the Committee for its decision and for the follow-up procedure which they are convinced play an important role in the State party=s efforts to implement the decision. They greeted the judicial amendments referred to by the State party, which had prevented it from recognizing the Habré affaire.

While recognizing the efforts made to date by the State party, the complainants highlighted the fact that the decision has not yet been fully implemented and that this case has not yet been submitted to the competent authorities. They also highlighted the following points:

1.  The new legislation does not include the crime of torture but only of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

2.  Given that the State party has an obligation to proceed with the trial or extradite Mr. Habré, the same should not be conditional upon the receipt by the State party of financial assistance. The complainants assume that this request is made to ensure that a trial is carried out in the best possible conditions.

3.  Irrespective of what the African Union has decided with respect to this affair, it can have no implications as to the State party=s obligation to recognize this affair and to submit it to the competent jurisdiction.

...

State party 

SENEGAL

Case

Suleymane Guengueng and others, 181/2001

Nationality and country of removal

if applicable

N/A

Views adopted on

17 May 2006

Issues and violations found

Failure to prosecute - articles 5, paragraph 2, and 7

Interim measures granted and State party response

N/A

Remedy recommended

In pursuance of rule 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee requests the State party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken in response to the views expressed above.

Due date for State party response

16 August 2006

Date of reply

17 June 2008 (had previously responded on 18 August, 28 September 2006, 8 March 2007 and 31 July 2007)

State party response

On 18 August 2006, the State party denied that it had violated the Convention, and reiterated its arguments on the merits, including its argument on article 5 that under the Convention a State party is not obliged to meet its obligations within a particular time. The extradition request was dealt with under national law applicable between the State party and States with which it does not have an extradition treaty. It stated that any other way of handling this case would have violated national law. The integration of article 5 into domestic law is in its final stage and the relevant text would be examined by the Legislative Authority. To avoid possible impunity, the State party submitted that it had deferred the case to the African Union for consideration, thus avoiding a violation of article 7. As the African Union had not yet considered the case at that point, it would be impossible to provide the complainants with compensation.

On 28 September 2006, the State party informed the Committee that the Committee of Eminent Jurists of the African Union had taken the decision to entrust Senegal with the task of trying Mr. Habré of the charges against him. It stated that its judicial authorities were looking into the judicial feasibility and the necessary elements of a contract to be signed between the State party and the African Union on logistics and finance.

On 7 March 2007, the State party provided the following update. It submitted that on 9 November 2006, the Council of Ministers had adopted two new laws relating to the recognition of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity as well as universal jurisdiction and judicial cooperation. The adoption of these laws fills the legal gap which had prevented the State party from recognizing the Habré case. On 23 November 2006, a working group was set up to consider the necessary measures to be taken to try Mr. Habré in a fair manner. This working group has considered the following: texts of the National Assembly on legal changes to remove obstacles highlighted during the consideration of the request for extradition on 20 September 2005; a framework for the infrastructural, legislative and administrative changes necessary to conform with the African Union=s request for a fair trial; measures to be taken in the diplomatic sphere to ensure cooperation between all of the countries concerned as well as other States and the African Union; security issues; and financial support. These elements were included in a report to the African Union during its eighth session which was held between 29 and 30 January 2007. The report underlined the necessity to mobilize financial resources from the international community.

On 31 July 2007 the State party informed the Committee that, contrary to the statement of counsel, the crime of torture is defined in article 295-1 of Law No. 96-15 and its scope has been strengthened by article 431-6 of Law 2007-02. It also emphasizes that the conduct of proceedings against Mr. Habré require considerable financial resources. For this reason, the African Union invited its member States and the international community to assist Senegal in that respect. Furthermore, the proposals made by the working group referred to above regarding the trial of Mr. Habré were submitted to the 8th Conference of Heads of State and Government of the African Union and approved. The Senegalese authorities are evaluating the cost of the proceedings and a decision in that respect will be adopted soon. In any case, they intend to fill the mandate given to them by the African Union and to meet Senegal=s treaty obligations.

On 17 June 2008, the State party confirmed the information provided by the State party=s representative to the Rapporteur during its meeting on 15 May 2008. It submits that the passing of a law which will amend its constitution will shortly be confirmed by Parliament. This law will add a new paragraph to article 9 of the Constitution which will circumvent the current prohibition on the retroactivity of criminal law and allow individuals to be judged for crimes including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which were considered crimes under international law at the time in which they were committed. On the issue of the budget, the State party submits that the figure of 18 million francs CFA (equivalent to around 43,000 USD) was the initial figure anticipated. That a counter proposal has been examined by the cabinet and that once this report is final a meeting will be organized in Dakar with the potential donors. To express its commitment to the process, the State itself has contributed 1 million francs CFA (equivalent to 2,400 USD) to commence the process. The State party has also taken account of the European Union experts recommendation, and named Mr. Ibrahima Gueye, Judge and President of the Court of Cassation as the ACoordinator@ of the process. It is also foreseen to reinforce the human resources of the Tribunal in Dakar which will try Mr. Habré, as well as the designation of the necessary judges.

Complainant=s response

On 9 October 2006, the complainants commented on the State party=s submission of 18 August 2006. They stated that the State party had provided no information on what action it intends to take to implement the Committee=s decision. Even three months after the African Union=s decision that Senegal should try Mr. Habré, the State party had still failed to clarify how it intends to implement the decision.

On 24 April 2007, the complainants responded to the State party=s submission of 7 March 2007. They thanked the Committee for its decision and for the follow-up procedure which they are convinced play an important role in the State party=s efforts to implement the decision. They greeted the judicial amendments referred to by the State party, which had prevented it from recognizing the Habré affaire.

While recognizing the efforts made to date by the State party, the complainants highlighted the fact that the decision has not yet been fully implemented and that this case has not yet been submitted to the competent authorities. They also highlighted the following points:

1.  The new legislation does not include the crime of torture but only of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

2.  Given that the State party has an obligation to proceed with the trial or extradite Mr. Habré, the same should not be conditional upon the receipt by the State party of financial assistance. The complainants assume that this request is made to ensure that a trial is carried out in the best possible conditions.

3.  Irrespective of what the African Union has decided with respect to this affair, it can have no implications as to the State party=s obligation to recognize this affair and to submit it to the competent jurisdiction.

On 19 October 2007, counsel expressed concern at the fact that 17 months after the Committee had taken its decision, no criminal proceedings had yet been initiated in the State party and no decision regarding extradition had been taken. He emphasized that time was very important for the victims and that one of the complainants had died as a result of the ill‑treatment suffered during Habré=s regime. Counsel requested the Committee to continue engaging the State party under the follow-up procedure.

On 7 April 2008, counsel reiterated his concern that despite the passage of 21 months since the Committee=s decision, Mr. Habré has still neither been brought to trial nor extradited. He recalls that the Ambassador, in his meeting with the Special Rapporteur during the November session of the Committee in 2007, indicated that the authorities were waiting for financial support from the international community. Apparently, this request for aid was made in July 2007 and responses were received from, among other countries, the European Union, France, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. These countries indicated that they would be prepared to assist financially as well as technically. The Senegalese authorities assured the victims last November that proceedings would not be held up but to date no date has been fixed for criminal action.

Further action taken/required

During the thirty-ninth session, the Special Rapporteur on follow-up met with a representative of the Permanent Mission of Senegal who expressed the interest of the State party in continuing cooperation with the Committee on this case. He indicated that a cost assessment to carry out the trial had been made and a donors meeting at which European countries would participate would be held soon.

On 15 May 2008, the Special Rapporteur met again with a State party representative. A copy of the letter from the complainants counsel, dated 7 April 2008, was given to the representative of the Mission for information. As to an update on the implementation of the Committee=s decision, the representative stated that an expert working group had submitted its report to the government on the modalities and budget of initiating proceedings and that this report had been sent to those countries which had expressed their willingness to assist Senegal. The European Union countries concerned returned the report with a counter proposal, which the President is currently reviewing. In addition, the President recognizing the importance of the affair, has put aside a certain sum of money (amount not provided) to commence proceedings. Legislative reform is also underway.

The representative stated that a fuller explanation would be provided in writing from the State party and the Rapporteur gave the State party one month from the date of the meeting itself for the purposes of including it in this annual report.

Committee=s decision

The Committee considers the follow-up dialogue ongoing.

...

...

State party 

SENEGAL

Case

Suleymane Guengueng and others, 181/2001

Nationality and country of removal

if applicable

N/A

Views adopted on

17 May 2006

Issues and violations found

Failure to prosecute - articles 5, paragraph 2, and 7

Interim measures granted and State party response

N/A

Remedy recommended

In pursuance of rule 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee requests the State party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken in response to the views expressed above.

Due date for State party response

16 August 2006

Date of reply

17 June 2008 (had previously responded on 18 August, 28 September 2006, 8 March 2007 and 31 July 2007).

State party response

On 18 August 2006, the State party denied that it had violated the Convention, and reiterated its arguments on the merits, including its argument on article 5 that under the Convention a State party is not obliged to meet its obligations within a particular time. The extradition request was dealt with under national law applicable between the State party and States with which it does not have an extradition treaty. It stated that any other way of handling this case would have violated national law. The integration of article 5 into domestic law is in its final stage and the relevant text would be examined by the Legislative Authority. To avoid possible impunity, the State party submitted that it had deferred the case to the African Union for consideration, thus avoiding a violation of article 7. As the African Union had not yet considered the case at that point, it would be impossible to provide the complainants with compensation.

On 28 September 2006, the State party informed the Committee that the Committee of Eminent Jurists of the African Union had taken the decision to entrust Senegal with the task of trying Mr. Habré of the charges against him. It stated that its judicial authorities were looking into the judicial feasibility and the necessary elements of a contract to be signed between the State party and the African Union on logistics and finance.

On 7 March 2007, the State party provided the following update. It submitted that on 9 November 2006, the Council of Ministers had adopted two new laws relating to the recognition of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity as well as universal jurisdiction and judicial cooperation. The adoption of these laws fills the legal gap which had prevented the State party from recognizing the Habré case. On 23 November 2006, a working group was set up to consider the necessary measures to be taken to try Mr. Habré in a fair manner. This working group has considered the following: texts of the National Assembly on legal changes to remove obstacles highlighted during the consideration of the request for extradition on 20 September 2005; a framework for the infrastructural, legislative and administrative changes necessary to conform with the African Union=s request for a fair trial; measures to be taken in the diplomatic sphere to ensure cooperation between all of the countries concerned as well as other States and the African Union; security issues; and financial support. These elements were included in a report to the African Union during its eighth session which was held between 29 and 30 January 2007.

The report underlined the necessity to mobilize financial resources from the international community.

On 31 July 2007 the State party informed the Committee that, contrary to the statement of counsel, the crime of torture is defined in article 295-1 of Law No. 96-15 and its scope has been strengthened by article 431-6 of Law 2007‑02. It also emphasizes that the conduct of proceedings against Mr. Habré require considerable financial resources. For this reason, the African Union invited its member States and the international community to assist Senegal in that respect. Furthermore, the proposals made by the working group referred to above regarding the trial of Mr. Habré were submitted to the 8th Conference of Heads of State and Government of the African Union and approved. The Senegalese authorities are evaluating the cost of the proceedings and a decision in that respect will be adopted soon. In any case, they intend to fill the mandate given to them by the African Union and to meet Senegal=s treaty obligations.

On 17 June 2008, the State party confirmed the information provided by the State party=s representative to the Rapporteur during its meeting on 15 May 2008. It submits that the passing of a law which will amend its Constitution will shortly be confirmed by Parliament. This law will add a new paragraph to article 9 of the Constitution which will circumvent the current prohibition on the retroactivity of criminal law and allow individuals to be judged for crimes including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which were considered crimes under international law at the time in which they were committed. On the issue of the budget, the State party submits that the figure of 18 million francs CFA (equivalent to around 43,000 USD) was the initial figure anticipated. That a counter-proposal has been examined by the cabinet and that once this report is final a meeting will be organized in Dakar with the potential donors. To express its commitment to the process, the State itself has contributed 1 million francs CFA (equivalent to 2,400 USD) to commence the process. The State party has also taken account of the European Union experts recommendation, and named Mr. Ibrahima Gueye, Judge and President of the Court of Cassation as the ACoordinator@ of the process. It is also foreseen to reinforce the human resources of the Tribunal in Dakar which will try Mr. Habré, as well as the designation of the necessary judges.

Complainant=s response

On 9 October 2006, the complainants commented on the State party=s submission of 18 August 2006. They stated that the State party had provided no information on what action it intends to take to implement the Committee=s decision. Even three months after the African Union=s decision that Senegal should try Mr. Habré, the State party had still failed to clarify how it intends to implement the decision.

On 24 April 2007, the complainants responded to the State party=s submission of 7 March 2007. They thanked the Committee for its decision and for the follow-up procedure which they are convinced play an important role in the State party=s efforts to implement the decision. They greeted the judicial amendments referred to by the State party, which had prevented it from recognizing the Habré affair.

While recognizing the efforts made to date by the State party, the complainants highlighted the fact that the decision has not yet been fully implemented and that this case has not yet been submitted to the competent authorities. They also highlighted the following points:

1.  The new legislation does not include the crime of torture but only of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

2.  Given that the State party has an obligation to proceed with the trial or extradite Mr. Habré, the same should not be conditional upon the receipt by the State party of financial assistance. The complainants assume that this request is made to ensure that a trial is carried out in the best possible conditions.

3.  Irrespective of what the African Union has decided with respect to this affair, it can have no implications as to the State party=s obligation to recognize this affair and to submit it to the competent jurisdiction.

On 19 October 2007, counsel expressed concern at the fact that 17 months after the Committee had taken its decision, no criminal proceedings had yet been initiated in the State party and no decision regarding extradition had been taken. He emphasized that time was very important for the victims and that one of the complainants had died as a result of the ill-treatment suffered during Habré=s regime. Counsel requested the Committee to continue engaging the State party under the follow-up procedure.

On 7 April 2008, counsel reiterated his concern that despite the passage of 21 months since the Committee=s decision, Mr. Habré has still neither been brought to trial nor extradited. He recalls that the Ambassador, in his meeting with the Special Rapporteur during the November session of the Committee in 2007, indicated that the authorities were waiting for financial support from the international community. Apparently, this request for aid was made in July 2007 and responses were received from, among other countries, the European Union, France, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. These countries indicated that they would be prepared to assist financially as well as technically. The Senegalese authorities assured the victims last November that proceedings would not be held up but to date no date has been fixed for criminal action.

On 22 October 2008, counsel expressed his concern at an interview published in a Senegalese newspaper, in which the President of the Republic is reported as having said that, Ail n=est pas obligé de juger@ Mr. Habré and that due to the lack of financial assistance he is not going to, Agarder indéfiniment Habré au Sénégal@ but Afera qu=il abandonne le Sénégal@. Counsel reiterated the measures taken to date for the purposes of trying Habré, including the fact that financial assistance has been offered by a number of countries but that the State party has not managed for two years to present a reasonable budget for his trial. The complainants are concerned at what counsel refers to as the Athreat@ from the President to expel Habré from Senegal, reminds the Committee that there is an extradition request from Belgium which remains pending, and requests the Committee to ask Senegal not to expel him and to take the necessary measures to prevent him from leaving Senegal other than through an extradition procedure, as the Committee did in 2001.

Consultations with State party

During the thirty-ninth session, the Special Rapporteur on follow-up met with a representative of the Permanent Mission of Senegal who expressed the interest of the State party in continuing cooperation with the Committee on this case. He indicated that a cost assessment to carry out the trial had been made and a donors meeting at which European countries would participate would be held soon.

On 15 May 2008, the Special Rapporteur met again with a State party representative. A copy of the letter from the complainants counsel, dated 7 April 2008, was given to the representative of the Mission for information. As to an update on the implementation of the Committee=s decision, the representative stated that an expert working group had submitted its report to the Government on the modalities and budget of initiating proceedings and that this report had been sent to those countries which had expressed their willingness to assist Senegal. The European Union countries concerned returned the report with a counter-proposal, which the President is currently reviewing. In addition, the President, recognizing the importance of the affair, has put aside a certain sum of money (amount not provided) to commence proceedings. Legislative reform is also under way.

The representative stated that a fuller explanation would be provided in writing from the State party and the Rapporteur gave the State party one month from the date of the meeting itself for the purposes of including it in this annual report.

Committee=s decision

The Committee considers the follow-up dialogue ongoing.

...

State party

Senegal

Case

Guengueng et al., 181/2001

Nationality and country of removal

if applicable

N/A

Views adopted on

17 May 2006

Issues and violations found

Failure to prosecute - articles 5, paragraph 2, and 7

Interim measures granted and State

party response

N/A

Remedy recommended

In pursuance of rule 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee requests the State party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken in response to the views expressed above.

Due date for State party response

16 August 2006

Date of reply

Latest reply on 28 April 2010 (had previously responded on 18 August, 28 September 2006, 7 March 2007, 31 July 2007 and 17 June 2008).

State party response

On 18 August 2006, the State party denied that it had violated the Convention, and reiterated its arguments on the merits, including its argument on article 5 that under the Convention a State party is not obliged to meet its obligations within a particular time. The extradition request was dealt with under national law applicable between the State party and States with which it does not have an extradition treaty. It stated that any other way of handling this case would have violated national law. The integration of article 5 into domestic law is in its final stage and the relevant text would be examined by the Legislative Authority. To avoid possible impunity, the State party submitted that it had deferred the case to the African Union for consideration, thus avoiding a violation of article 7. As the African Union had not yet considered the case at that point, it would be impossible to provide the complainants with compensation.

On 28 September 2006, the State party informed the Committee that the Committee of Eminent Jurists of the African Union had taken the decision to entrust Senegal with the task of trying Mr. Hissène Habré of the charges against him. It stated that its judicial authorities were looking into the judicial feasibility and the necessary elements of a contract to be signed between the State party and the African Union on logistics and finance.

On 7 March 2007, the State party provided the following update. It submitted that on 9 November 2006, the Council of Ministers had adopted two new laws relating to the recognition of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity as well as universal jurisdiction and judicial cooperation. The adoption of these laws fills the legal gap which had prevented the State party from recognizing the Habré case. On 23 November 2006, a working group was set up to consider the necessary measures to be taken to try Mr. Habré in a fair manner. This working group has considered the following: texts of the National Assembly on legal changes to remove obstacles highlighted during the consideration of the request for extradition on 20 September 2005; a framework for the infrastructural, legislative and administrative changes necessary to conform with the African Union=s request for a fair trial; measures to be taken in the diplomatic sphere to ensure cooperation between all of the countries concerned as well as other States and the African Union; security issues; and financial support. These elements were included in a report to the African Union during its eighth session which was held between 29 and 30 January 2007.

The report underlined the necessity to mobilize financial resources from the international community.

Complainant=s comments

On 9 October 2006, the complainants commented on the State party=s submission of 18 August 2006. They stated that the State party had provided no information on what action it intends to take to implement the Committee=s decision. Even three months after the African Union=s decision that Senegal should try Mr. Habré, the State party had still failed to clarify how it intends to implement the decision.

On 24 April 2007, the complainants responded to the State party=s submission of 7 March 2007. They thanked the Committee for its decision and for the follow-up procedure which they are convinced play an important role in the State party=s efforts to implement the decision. They greeted the judicial amendments referred to by the State party, which had prevented it from recognizing the Habré affair.

While recognizing the efforts made to date by the State party, the complainants highlighted the fact that the decision has not yet been fully implemented and that this case has not yet been submitted to the competent authorities. They also highlighted the following points:

(a)  The new legislation does not include the crime of torture but only of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes;

(b)  Given that the State party has an obligation to proceed with the trial or extradite Mr. Habré, the same should not be conditional upon the receipt by the State party of financial assistance. The complainants assume that this request is made to ensure that a trial is carried out in the best possible conditions;

(c)  Irrespective of what the African Union has decided with respect to this affair, it can have no implications as to the State party=s obligation to recognize this affair and to submit it to the competent jurisdiction.

State party response

On 31 July 2007, the State party informed the Committee that, contrary to the statement of counsel, the crime of torture is defined in article 295-1 of Law No. 96-15 and its scope has been strengthened by article 431-6 of Law 2007-02. It also emphasizes that the conduct of proceedings against Mr. Habré require considerable financial resources. For this reason, the African Union invited its member States and the international community to assist Senegal in that respect. Furthermore, the proposals made by the working group referred to above regarding the trial of Mr. Habré were submitted to the 8th Conference of Heads of State and Government of the African Union and approved. The Senegalese authorities are evaluating the cost of the proceedings and a decision in that respect will be adopted soon. In any case, they intend to fill the mandate given to them by the African Union and to meet Senegal=s treaty obligations.

Complainant=s comments

On 19 October 2007, counsel expressed concern at the fact that 17 months after the Committee had taken its decision, no criminal proceedings had yet been initiated in the State party and no decision regarding extradition had been taken. He emphasized that time was very important for the victims and that one of the complainants had died as a result of the ill-treatment suffered during Mr. Habré=s regime. Counsel requested the Committee to continue engaging the State party under the follow-up procedure.

On 7 April 2008, counsel reiterated his concern that despite the passage of 21 months since the Committee=s decision, Mr. Habré has still neither been brought to trial nor extradited. He recalls that the Ambassador, in his meeting with the Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints during the November session of the Committee in 2007, indicated that the authorities were waiting for financial support from the international community. Apparently, this request for aid was made in July 2007 and responses were received from, among others, the European Union, France, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. These countries indicated that they would be prepared to assist financially as well as technically. The Senegalese authorities assured the victims last November that proceedings would not be held up but to date no date has been fixed for criminal action.

State party response

On 17 June 2008, the State party confirmed the information provided by the State party=s representative to the Rapporteur during its meeting on 15 May 2008. It submits that the passing of a law which will amend its Constitution will shortly be confirmed by Parliament. This law will add a new paragraph to article 9 of the Constitution which will circumvent the current prohibition on the retroactivity of criminal law and allow individuals to be judged for crimes including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which were considered crimes under international law at the time in which they were committed. On the issue of the budget, the State party submits that the figure of 18 million CFA francs (equivalent to around US$ 43,000) was the initial figure anticipated, that a counter-proposal has been examined by the cabinet and that once this report is final a meeting will be organized in Dakar with the potential donors. To express its commitment to the process, the State itself has contributed 1 million CFA francs (equivalent to US$ 2,400) to commence the process. The State party has also taken account of the European Union experts= recommendation, and named Mr. Ibrahima Gueye, Judge and President of the Court of Cassation, as the ACoordinator@ of the process. It is also expected that the human resources of the Tribunal in Dakar which will try Mr. Habré will be reinforced, and that the necessary judges will be designated.

Complainant=s comments

On 22 October 2008, counsel expressed his concern at an interview published in a Senegalese newspaper, in which the President of the Republic is reported as having said that, Ail n=est pas obligé de juger@ Mr. Habré and that due to the lack of financial assistance he is not going to, Agarder indéfiniment Habré au Sénégal@ but Afera qu=il abandonne le Sénégal@. Counsel reiterated the measures taken to date for the purposes of trying Mr. Habré, including the fact that financial assistance has been offered by a number of countries but that the State party has not managed for two years to present a reasonable budget for his trial. The complainants are concerned at what counsel refers to as the Athreat@ from the President to expel Mr. Habré from Senegal, reminds the Committee that there is an extradition request from Belgium which remains pending, and requests the Committee to ask Senegal not to expel him and to take the necessary measures to prevent him from leaving Senegal other than through an extradition procedure, as the Committee did in 2001.

State party response

On 28 April 2010, the State party provided an update on implementation of this case. It referred to the cooperation it provided to the Committee against Torture mission to Senegal in August 2009 and reiterated the financial impediment to commencing the trial. It submitted that on 23 June 2009, Belgium contacted the Senegalese authorities due to concern that the trial had not begun. It offered to send a copy of the file it had already put together on the case to the Senegalese authorities and invited Senegalese judges to Belgium to meet with their counterparts there to share experience.

On 4 June 2009, a mission to Senegal headed by Maitre Robert Dossou at the request of the President of the African Union took place. In addition, in December 2009, two experts from the European Union worked with the African Union on finalizing the budget. The presence of experts from both the African Union and the European Union coincided with the holding of a meeting on the terms of reference of a trial, during which they took part, including the regional representative of OHCHR. The presence of these experts occasioned a visit to the old Palais de Justice, where the trial will take place after its renovation. The State party is currently waiting for the conclusion of this European Union mission which has considerable consequences for the determination of the budget. During the 12th and 13th summits of the African Union, numerous appeals were made to African States requesting financial support to Senegal for the trial and in February 2010 the African Union adopted a decision to invite Senegal to organize a round table of donors in 2010 to include other African States with the purpose of raising funds. By letter of 30 March 2010, Chad confirmed its commitment to contribute to the trial and requested information on the number of the account to which such financial assistance should be forwarded.

The State party also referred to Mr. Habré=s case before the Economic Community of West African States Court of Justice, where he claimed that Senegal violated the principles of non-retroactivity and equality, in applying new legislation retroactively. In January 2010, this case was adjourned until 16 April 2010. A case lodged before the African Court of Human and Peoples= Rights against Senegal challenging the universal jurisdiction prosecution of Mr. Habré was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 15 December 2009.

Consultations with State party

During the thirty-ninth session, the Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints met with a representative of the Permanent Mission of Senegal who expressed the interest of the State party in continuing cooperation with the Committee on this case. He indicated that a cost assessment to carry out the trial had been made and a donors meeting at which European countries would participate would be held soon.

On 15 May 2008, the Rapporteur met again with a State party representative. A copy of the letter from the complainants counsel, dated 7 April 2008, was given to the representative of the Mission for information. As to an update on the implementation of the Committee=s decision, the representative stated that an expert working group had submitted its report to the Government on the modalities and budget of initiating proceedings and that this report had been sent to those countries which had expressed their willingness to assist Senegal. The European Union countries concerned returned the report with a counter-proposal, which the President is currently reviewing. In addition, the President, recognizing the importance of the affair, has put aside a certain sum of money (amount not provided) to commence proceedings. Legislative reform is also under way. The representative stated that a fuller explanation would be provided in writing from the State party and the Rapporteur gave the State party one month from the date of the meeting itself for the purposes of including it in this annual report.

Summary of a confidential mission to Senegal under article 22

During the forty-first session of the Committee, which took place between 3 and 21 November 2008, in the context of follow-up to the Committee=s decisions under article 22 of the Convention, the Committee decided to request Senegal to accept an official confidential mission to follow up on the case of Guengueng et al. v. Senegal (case No. 181/2001, adopted on 17 May 2006). On 7 May 2009, the Government of Senegal accepted the request for the visit.

The mission to Dakar took place between 4 and 7 August 2009 and was made up of two members of the Committee against Torture, Mr. Claudio Grossman, the Chair of the Committee and Mr. Fernando Mariño, the Committee=s Rapporteur for follow-up to decisions on complaints, as well as two members of the Secretariat.

The mission met with representatives from several government departments, civil society and the European Union. It found that the State party was well prepared for the visit and that all interlocutors were fully versed on the facts and status of the case. In its summation, the mission noted and appreciated the fact that Senegal had made all the necessary legislative and constitutional amendments, as well as the necessary administrative arrangements to try Mr. Habré. All interlocutors highlighted the absence of any such obstacles to his trial and stressed the considerable efforts the State party has made in this regard.

The mission noted that one of the remaining obstacles to be addressed by the State party was the development of a prosecution strategy. Despite the view of some representatives, that substantial funding would be needed for the purposes of accommodating a, possibly unlimited, number of witnesses, the mission welcomed the opinion of the judiciary that a restrictive approach would be the more reasonable option. The judiciary highlighted that the examining magistrate (juge d=instruction) would be the one to decide, inter alia, upon the number of witnesses necessary, which in any event could not be unlimited and could not be used to obstruct the trial.

The mission noted that the strategy chosen would undoubtedly determine the financial needs of the trial. Notwithstanding the lack of clarity on the amount required, the mission noted that these financial questions were in the process of being finalized, and observed, that at least from the judiciary=s point of view, this issue could be resolved as the procedure advanced.

The mission also learned that a further obstacle to the commencement of a trial indicated by several interlocutors was a need for training. It informed all interlocutors that any request for technical assistance could be accommodated within a short delay upon receipt of a well-formulated request.

The mission found that at least from the judiciary=s point of view there was no remaining impediment to pursuing a trial and it was confident that the financial issues could be clarified as and when the trial evolved. However, the executive branch of Government was strongly of the opinion that the financial issue would have to be resolved prior to giving any instructions to issue an indictment against Mr. Habré.

During its 43rd session, which took place from 2 to 20 November 2009, the Committee examined a confidential report from the mission. On 23 November 2009, following the session, it sent a note verbale to the State party, in which it thanked it for its cooperation during the mission, pointed out its main impressions from the State party officials interviewed, reminded the State party of its obligations under the Convention (referring to para. 10 of its Decision No. 181/2001, Guengueng et al. v. Senegal, adopted on 17 May 2006), and requested an update on the implementation of this case from the State party within three months, i.e. prior to 23 February 2010. To date, no response has been received from the State party.

Committee=s decision

The Committee considers the follow-up dialogue ongoing.

...