## Facts

- Hissène Habré, former President of Chad (1982–1990), lived in Senegal from 1990 under political asylum.
- Belgium alleged that Habré committed acts of torture and that Senegal failed to meet duties under the Convention against Torture (CAT) by neither prosecuting him nor extraditing him.
- Belgium commenced proceedings against Senegal on February 19, 2009, relying primarily on CAT Article 30(1) for jurisdiction.
- Belgium sought provisional measures to ensure Habré remained under Senegalese judicial control; the court declined, citing Senegal’s assurances and lack of urgency.
- The merits phase addressed jurisdiction, admissibility, Senegal’s compliance with CAT Articles 6(2) and 7(1), and remedies.

## Issues

1. Whether the court had jurisdiction under CAT Article 30(1) over a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of CAT Articles 6(2) and 7(1).
2. Whether the court had jurisdiction to decide claims premised on alleged obligations under customary international law.
3. Whether Belgium had standing and its claims were admissible, including whether CAT obligations are owed erga omnes partes.
4. Whether Senegal breached CAT Article 6(2) by failing to make an immediate preliminary inquiry into the allegations against Habré.
5. Whether Senegal breached CAT Article 7(1) by failing to submit the case to competent authorities for prosecution if it did not extradite him.
6. Whether CAT’s prosecute-or-extradite obligation applies when the alleged acts predate the Convention’s entry into force for the territorial State.

## Decision

- The court unanimously held it had jurisdiction under CAT Article 30(1) over the dispute concerning CAT Articles 6(2) and 7(1).
- The court (14–2) held it lacked jurisdiction over Belgium’s claims based on customary international law.
- The court (14–2) held Belgium’s CAT-based claims were admissible and Belgium had standing as a State party.
- The court (14–2) found Senegal breached CAT Article 6(2) by failing to make an immediate preliminary inquiry into the alleged acts.
- The court (14–2) found Senegal breached CAT Article 7(1) by failing to submit the case to competent authorities for prosecution.
- The court held Senegal remained obliged to submit the case for prosecution if it did not extradite Habré and ordered Senegal, without further delay, to do so.

## Legal Principles

- CAT Article 30(1) confers jurisdiction over disputes concerning interpretation or application of the Convention when negotiation fails and arbitration is requested and not concluded within six months.
- CAT obligations to investigate (Art. 6(2)) and to prosecute or extradite (Art. 7(1)) are erga omnes partes: any State party may invoke another State party’s responsibility for alleged noncompliance, independent of victim nationality.
- Article 6(2) requires a preliminary inquiry “immediately” once an alleged torturer is present and the State has reason to suspect torture.
- Article 7(1) imposes an alternative duty: if the territorial State does not extradite, it must submit the case to competent authorities for prosecution; the obligation is one of means (proper submission and decision-making), not a guarantee of conviction.
- The prosecute-or-extradite obligation applies to an alleged offender present in the State’s territory after the Convention enters into force for that State, even if the alleged acts occurred earlier.
- A State may not justify nonperformance of CAT duties by invoking internal law, financial constraints, or pending regional processes; implementation choices do not permit indefinite delay.
- The prohibition of torture is absolute and recognized as a peremptory norm, supporting strict treaty duties aimed at preventing impunity.

## Conclusion

The court held that Senegal violated CAT by failing to promptly investigate and to submit Habré’s case to prosecutorial authorities, and it ordered Senegal to proceed without further delay with prosecution if it did not extradite him; it also confirmed that key CAT duties are enforceable by any State party as obligations owed erga omnes partes.


Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belg. v. Sen.), Judgment, 2012 I.C.J. 422 (July 20)