Belgium v Senegal

Naielah Julius
Siti Nur Aida Zaidi
Khairunnajhan Khalid
Najwa Binti Mohd Nor

1
 Questions relating to the Obligation to
Prosecute or Extradite

Hissane Habre :

2
SUMMARY OF THE CASE

3
- This dispute relates to the interpretation and
application of the United Nations Convention against
Torture of 10 December 1984, which has been
binding on the two States since 21 August 1986
(Senegal) and 25 June 1999 (Belgium), the Court’s
jurisdiction is also founded on the compromissory
clause included in Article 30 of that Convention.

4
- Hissene Habre (former president of Republic of
Chad, from 1982-1990). He was alleged to
commit a large scale violations of human rights
during that time through his political police,DCC.
He later was overthrown by his opponent and
was exile in Senegal. (para 16)

5
- 7 Chadians nationals together with an
association of victims filed a criminal complaint
against Habre in Dakar, Senegal in 2000. (para
17)
- Then the proceedings against Mr. Habré was
annulled by COA, on the ground that they
concerned crimes committed not within the
territory of Senegal by a foreign national against
foreign nationals and that they would involve the
exercise of universal jurisdiction. (para 18)
6
- At that time (2000) the Senegalese Code of
Criminal Procedure (then) in force did not provide
for such jurisdiction. (para 18)

- This judgement was affirmed by the highest court

there. (para 18)

7
- Later on, 21 victims filed suit against Habre in
Belgium and after 4 years of investigation, Belgium
issued an international warrant arrest against Habre,
requesting for Habre’s extradition. (para 19, 21)

- The Chamber of D’accusation of the Dakar COA ruled

on Belgium’s extradition request, and decided that
Habré enjoyed jurisdictional immunity, despite the fact
that, in 1993, Chad had officially lifted from the former
president all immunity from legal process. (para 22)
8
- At that time (2000) the Senegalese Code of
Criminal Procedure (then) in force did not
provide for such jurisdiction. (para 18)

- This judgement was affirmed by the highest

court there. (para 18)

9
- Senegal then sought advice from AU and AU declared
Senegal to prosecute and ensure that Habre is tried
on behalf of Africa by a competent Senegalese court
with guarantees for fair trial. (para 23)

- Therefore, Senegal amend its penal code and code of

criminal procedure to comply with AU mandate
however the proceeding still cannot be continued due
to lack of international funding for all costs of the trial.
10
- Belgium later filed an application to ICJ stating
that Senegal had breached its obligation under
Article 6, paragraph 2 and Article 7 paragraph 1
of CAT by failing to bring criminal proceedings
against Mr Habre.

11
ISSUES BEFORE THE
COURT

12
1) Whether Belgium has the right to initiate
action against Senegal? (para 64-70)

13
- Senegal claimed that Belgium is not in position to invoke the
international responsibility of Senegal to submit Habre to be
prosecuted on the ground that none of Habre’s victims
were of Belgian nationality. However, one of the
complainant was of Belgian nationality (Chadian origin)
hence Belgian courts intend to exercise passive personal
jurisdiction. So, Belgium requested the ICJ to declare that its
claim was admissible.

14
- Belgium also argued that under convention it has obligation
under CAT.
- Obligation erga omnes - where the Belgium as the party to
CAT therefore it have a legal interest and standing to
invoke responsibility of Senegal for the alleged breaches.
The claims of Belgium then were admissible to the court.

15
2) Whether Senegal had breached its obligation
under Article 6 paragraph 2 and Article 7 paragraph 1
of CAT when it failed to prosecute Habre?

16
Article 6 paragraph 2 - “Such State shall immediately make a
preliminary inquiry into the facts”

- Belgium alleged that there was no preliminary inquiry

conducted by Senegal therefore it violated CAT. Senegal
responded to it by stating that having inquiry doesn’t
necessary lead to prosecution since the prosecutor may
found there are no grounds for such proceedings (para 81-
82)

17
- Court viewed that preliminary inquiry is needed to be
carried out by the competent authorities in which to
corroborate or not the suspicions regarding the person
in question. (para 83)

- They have the task of drawing a case file and

collecting facts and evidence (consist of documents or
witness statement relating to the suspect’s involvement
in the matter concerned) (para 83)

18
- The court observed that Senegal has not included in
the case file any materials that showed Senegal had
made inquiry against Habre. This is because even
though Senegal had adopted legislative measures
required, Senegal must also exercise its jurisdiction
over any act of torture starting by establishing the
facts.
- It was found that questioning conducted to establish
Habre’s identity and his allegations was not amount to
performance of the obligation under Article 6 para 2
since it doesn’t involve any inquiry into the charges
against him (para 85)
19
- There were also no preliminary inquiry initiated by
Senegal following to the complaint which was made
after the constitutional amendments in 2007 (para 87)

- The court also found the Senegalese authorities did

not immediately initiate a preliminary inquiry as soon
as they suspect Habre, who was in their territory of
being responsible for acts of torture. Hence, Senegal
has breached its obligation under Article 6 paragraph 2
of the Convention. (para 88)
20
Article 7 paragraph 1 of CAT

“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”
21
- The Court considers that: Article 7(1) obliges the State
concerned to submit the case to its competent
authorities for the purpose of prosecution, irrespective of
the existence of a prior request for the extradition of the
suspect. This may or may not result in the institution of
proceedings, in light of the evidence before the
authorities (para. 94).

22
- However, if the State in whose territory the suspect is
present has received a request for extradition, it can
relieve itself of its obligation to prosecute by acceding
to that request. Extradition is an option offered to the
State by the Convention, whereas prosecution is an
international obligation under the Convention, the
violation of which is a wrongful act engaging the
responsibility of the State (para. 95).

23
- Although the prohibition of torture is a norm of jus cogens
and customary international law (para. 99), the obligation
to prosecute alleged perpetrators of acts of torture under
the Convention only applies to facts that have occurred
after the entry into force of the Convention for the State
concerned (para. 100).

- Thus, Senegal’s obligation to prosecute does not apply

to acts allegedly committed before the Convention
entered into force for Senegal on 26 June 1987 (para.
102).
24
- Senegal’s duty to comply with its Convention obligations is
not affected by the decision of the Court of Justice of
ECOWAS (para. 111) nor can its failure to comply be
justified by financial difficulties (para. 112) or its internal law
(para. 113). It is implicit in Article 7(1) that the obligation to
prosecute must be implemented within a reasonable time, in
a manner compatible with the object and purpose of the
Convention (para. 114).

25
- Having failed to adopt all measures necessary
for the implementation of its obligation under
Article 7(1) as soon as possible, in particular,
once the first complaint had been filed in 2000,
Senegal has breached and remains in breach of
its obligations under Article 7(1) (para. 117).

26
COURT'S DECISION

27
1. It has jurisdiction to entertain dispute between
parties in regards to interpretation and application of
Article 6 of the United Nations Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment which Belgium submitted
to court in its application filed in registry on 2009.

1. It has no jurisdiction to entertain claims of of

Belgium relating to alleged breaches by Senegal of
obligations under customary international law.
28
3. Claims of Belgium based on Article 6 and
Article 7 of United Nations Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment are admissible.

4. Senegal fails to make preliminary inquiry

into the facts relating to the crimes committed by
Habre that he breached its obligation under
Article 6 of UNCT.
29
5. Senegal failed to submit the case of
Habre to its competent authorities to prosecute
him as he has breached obligation under Article
7 of UNCT.

6. Senegal must submit case of Habre to

competent authorities without further delay for
prosecution if it does not extradite him.
30
LATEST NEWS ON
HISSÉNE HABRE

31
● On May 30, 2016, he was
convicted of crimes against
humanity, war crimes, and
torture, including sexual
violence and rape, by the
Extraordinary African
Chambers in the
Senegalese court system
and sentenced to life in
prison.
● On April 27, 2017, an appeals
court confirmed the verdict and
ordered Habré to pay
approximately 123 million euros
in victim compensation. The
advent of the trial, 25 years after
Habré was overthrown and fled
to Senegal, was entirely due to
the perseverance and tenacity of
Habré’s victims and their allies
such as Human Rights Watch.
32
33