Prosecuting International Crimes in Africa - PULP - University of ...

186 Chapter 8
régional hors classe. 4 The complaint was anchored on the Convention
against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CAT) 5 and the general obligation on states, by virtue of
customary international law, to prosecute international crimes. 6 The
matter turned into the ‘Hissène Habré case’ when the investigating Judge
Demba Kandji, indicted Hissène Habré on 3 February 2000 and placed
him under house arrest. Later on, the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar
Court of Appeal 7 and the Court of Cassation, 8 one after another, asserted
that Senegal lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Hissène Habré. 9
The victims appealed to the Committee against Torture by virtue of the
Committee’s mandate to examine communications alleging violation of
CAT. 10 In its decision on the merit of the communication, the Committee
against Torture declared that Senegal had violated CAT by failing to
prosecute or extradite Habré for many years. 11 Consequently, the
Committee requested Senegal to submit the case to its competent
jurisdictions for the purpose of prosecution or otherwise comply with the
extradition request made by Belgium or, should the case arise, with any
eventual extradition request made in accordance with CAT. 12
In order to escape the political consequences of legal proceedings in its
domestic courts, Senegal referred the case to the African Union (AU) for it
to indicate a competent jurisdiction to prosecute Habré. At its January
2006 summit, the AU set up a Committee of Eminent African Jurists
(CEAJ) to consider all the aspects and implications of the Habré case. 13
4
The complainants submitted in support of their complaint, documents related to 97
alleged political killings, 142 alleged cases of torture, 100 alleged ‘disappearances’ and
5
736 alleged arbitrary arrests, mostly allegedly perpetrated by the DDS.
CAT was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10
December 1984. It entered into force on 26 June 1987 and Senegal ratified the
6
7
Convention on 21 August 1986.
Section V of the complaint, see n 3 above.
Ministère public et Francois Diouf Contre Hissene Habré Dakar Court of Appeal, Judgment
135 of 4 July 2000; the French version of the decision is available at http://
8
www.hrw.org/legacy/french/themes/habre-decision.html (accessed 4 March 2010).
Souleymane Guengueng et Autres Contre Hissene Habré Court of Cassation, Judgment 14 of
20 March 2001; the French version of the decision can be accessed at http://
www.hrw.org/legacy/french/themes/habre-cour_de_cass.html (accessed 4 March
9
2010).
The Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation
anchored their decision in the fact that the alleged crimes were committed elsewhere
and Senegal had not incorporated the provisions of CAT into its Code of Criminal
10
Procedure.
Souleymane Guengueng et Autres c. Senegal submitted to the Committee Against Torture in
compliance with art 22 of CAT. Senegal made the declaration under art 22 of CAT on
16 October 1996, accepting the competence of the Committee to examine individual
11
complaints filed against it.
Communication 181/2001: Senegal, 19/05/2006 CAT/C/36/D/181/2001
12
13
(Jurisprudence) paras 9.5, 9.6 and 9.7.
As above, para 10.
Decision on the Hissène Habré Case and the African Union (Doc Assembly/AU/8
(VI)) Add 9 http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/Documents/Decisions/hog/
AU6th_ord_KHARTOUM_Jan2006.pdf (accessed 4 March 2010).