COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE RECUEIL DES ARRE|TS, AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES QUESTIONS CONCERNANT L’OBLIGATION DE POURSUIVRE OU D’EXTRADER

8/3/2019 COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE RECUEIL DES ARRE|TS, AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES QUESTIONS CON

1/39

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRE|TS,AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

QUESTIONS CONCERNANT LOBLIGATION

DE POURSUIVRE OU DEXTRADER

(BELGIQUE c. SEuNEuGAL)

DEMANDE EN INDICATIONDE MESURES CONSERVATOIRES

ORDONNANCE DU 28 MAI 2009

2009

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,

ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE OBLIGATION

TO PROSECUTE OR EXTRADITE

(BELGIUM v. SENEGAL)

REQUEST FOR THE INDICATIONOF PROVISIONAL MEASURES

ORDER OF 28 MAY 2009


2/39

Mode officiel de citation:

Questions concernant lobligation de poursuivre ou dextrader(Belgique c. Sngal), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 28 mai 2009,

C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 139

Official citation:Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite

(Belgium v. Senegal), Provisional Measures, Order of 28 May 2009,I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 139

ISSN 0074-4441

ISBN 978-92-1-071063-3

No

de vente:

Sales number 954


3/39

QUESTIONS CONCERNANT LOBLIGATIONDE POURSUIVRE OU DEXTRADER

(BELGIQUE c. SEuNEuGAL)

DEMANDE EN INDICATION

DE MESURES CONSERVATOIRES

QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE OBLIGATIONTO PROSECUTE OR EXTRADITE


REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION

OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES

28 MAI 2009

ORDONNANCE

28 MAY 2009

ORDER


4/39

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

ANNE 2009

28 mai 2009

QUESTIONS CONCERNANT LOBLIGATION

DE POURSUIVRE OU DEXTRADER(BELGIQUE c. SEuNEuGAL)

DEMANDE EN INDICATIONDE MESURES CONSERVATOIRES

ORDONNANCE

Prsents: M. OWADA, prsident ; MM. SHI, KOROMA, AL-KHASAWNEH,SIMMA, ABRAHAM, SEPLVEDA-AMOR, BENNOUNA, SKOTNIKOV,CANADO TRINDADE, YUSUF, GREENWOOD, juges ; MM. SUR,KIRSCH, juges ad hoc; M. COUVREUR, greffier.

La Cour internationale de Justice,

Ainsi compose,Aprs dlibr en chambre du conseil,Vu les articles 41 et 48 du Statut de la Cour et les articles 73 et 74 de

son Rglement,

Rend lordonnance suivante:

1. Considrant que, par une requte dpose au Greffe de la Cour le19 fvrier 2009, le Gouvernement du Royaume de Belgique (dnommci-aprs la Belgique) a introduit une instance contre la Rpublique du

Sngal (dnomme ci-aprs le Sngal) au sujet dun diffrend relatifau respect par le Sngal de son obligation de poursuivre M. H. Habr[, ancien prsident de la Rpublique du Tchad,] ou de lextrader vers laBelgique aux fins de poursuites pnales; que la Belgique fonde ses

139

200928 mai

Rle gnralno 144

4


5/39

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 2009

28 May 2009

QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE OBLIGATION

TO PROSECUTE OR EXTRADITE


REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION OFPROVISIONAL MEASURES

ORDER

Present : President OWADA ; Judges SHI, KOROMA, AL-KHASAWNEH,SIMMA, ABRAHAM, SEPLVEDA-AMOR, BENNOUNA, SKOTNIKOV,CANADO TRINDADE, YUSUF, GREENWOOD ; Judges ad hoc SUR,KIRSCH; Registrar COUVREUR.

The International Court of Justice,

Composed as above,After deliberation,Having regard to Articles 41 and 48 of the Statute of the Court and

Articles 73 and 74 of the Rules of Court,

Makes the following Order:

1. Whereas, by an Application filed in the Registry of the Court on19 February 2009, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium (herein-after Belgium) instituted proceedings against the Republic of Senegal

(hereinafter Senegal) in respect of a dispute concerning Senegalscompliance with its obligation to prosecute Mr. H. Habr [former Presi-dent of Chad] or to extradite him to Belgium for the purposes of criminalproceedings; whereas Belgium bases its claims on the United Nations

139

200928 May

General ListNo. 144

4


6/39

demandes sur la convention des Nations Unies contre la torture et autrespeines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dgradants du 10 dcembre

1984 (ci-aprs dnomme la convention contre la torture), ainsi quesur le droit international coutumier;

2. Considrant que, dans sa requte, la Belgique se rfre, pour fonderla comptence de la Cour, aux dclarations faites, en application du para-graphe 2 de larticle 36 du Statut, par la Belgique le 17 juin 1958 et par leSngal le 2 dcembre 1985, ainsi quau paragraphe 1 de larticle 30 de laconvention contre la torture;

3. Considrant que, dans cette requte, la Belgique soutient que leSngal, o M. Habr rside depuis 1990, na pas donn suite sesdemandes rptes de voir lancien prsident tchadien poursuivi en justice

au Sngal, dfaut dtre extrad vers la Belgique, pour des faits qua-lifis, notamment, de crimes de torture et de crimes contre lhumanit quiauraient t commis au cours de sa prsidence entre le 7 juin 1982 et le1er dcembre 1990 ; et quelle expose que, suite aux plaintes dposesen 2000 au Sngal contre M. Habr par sept personnes physiques et unepersonne morale, celui-ci a t inculp de complicit de crimes contrelhumanit, dactes de torture et de barbarie par le doyen des jugesdinstruction prs le tribunal rgional hors classe de Dakar et assign rsidence, mais que lesdites plaintes ont t rejetes le 4 juillet 2000 par lachambre daccusation de la cour dappel de Dakar au motif que le crimecontre lhumanit ne faisait pas partie du droit pnal sngalais et que,

sagissant du crime de torture, la loi sngalaise ne permettait pas au jugesngalais dexercer sa comptence pour des faits commis ltranger parun tranger;

4. Considrant que, dans ladite requte, la Belgique indique galementquentre le 30 novembre 200 et le 11 dcembre 2001 un ressortissantbelge dorigine tchadienne et des ressortissants tchadiens ont dposdes plaintes avec constitution de partie civile auprs des autorits judi-ciaires belges, contre M. Habr, pour des crimes de droit internationalhumanitaire; et quelle ajoute qu la suite de ces plaintes, agissant autitre de la comptence personnelle passive que se reconnaissent les juri-

dictions belges, le juge dinstruction en charge du dossier a dcernun mandat darrt international lencontre de M. Habr le 19 sep-tembre 2005 ;

5. Considrant que la Belgique prcise que ledit mandat darrt, quifait notamment rfrence la leve par le Tchad, le 7 octobre 2002, desimmunits dont M. Habr aurait pu le cas chant se prvaloir, a ttransmis au Sngal le 19 septembre 2005 en vue dobtenir lextraditionde lintress; et quelle prcise en outre que la chambre daccusation dela cour dappel de Dakar a estim, le 25 novembre 2005, ne pas pouvoirdonner suite ce mandat dans la mesure o il concernait des faits com-

mis par un chef dEtat dans lexercice de ses fonctions;6. Considrant que la Belgique indique encore que le dossier a ttransmis par le Sngal lUnion africaine le 7 dcembre 2005; et quelleajoute que, suite une dcision prise au sommet de Banjul (Gambie), le

140 OBLIGATION DE POURSUIVRE OU DEXTRADER (ORD. 28 V 09)

5


7/39

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or DegradingTreatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984 (hereinafter the Con-

vention against Torture), as well as on customary international law;

2. Whereas in its Application, as a basis for the jurisdiction of theCourt, Belgium refers to the declarations made under Article 36, para-graph 2, of the Statute, by Belgium on 17 June 1958 and by Senegal on2 December 1985, and to Article 30, paragraph 1, of the Conventionagainst Torture;

3. Whereas, in this Application, Belgium maintains that Senegal, whereMr. Habr has resided since 1990, has taken no action on its repeatedrequests to see the former President of Chad prosecuted in Senegal, fail-

ing his extradition to Belgium, for acts characterized as including crimesof torture and crimes against humanity, allegedly perpetrated during hispresidency between 7 June 1982 and 1 December 1990; and whereas itexplains that, following the complaints filed in Senegal in 2000 againstMr. Habr by seven natural persons and one legal person, he wasindicted for complicity in crimes against humanity, acts of torture andbarbarity by the senior investigating judge of the Dakar Tribunalrgional hors classe and placed under house arrest, but that those com-plaints were dismissed by the Chambre daccusation of the Dakar Courtof Appeal on 4 July 2000 on the grounds that crimes against humanitydid not form part of Senegalese criminal law and, with regard to the

crime of torture, that Senegalese law did not allow a Senegalese court toexercise jurisdiction in respect of acts committed abroad by an alien;

4. Whereas in the said Application Belgium also states that, between30 November 2000 and 11 December 2001, a Belgian national of Chadianorigin and certain Chadian nationals filed criminal complaints with civil-party applications with the Belgian judicial authorities against Mr. Habrfor crimes under international humanitarian law; and whereas it addsthat, following the filing of those complaints, acting on the basis ofpassive personal jurisdiction as recognized by the Belgian courts, the

investigating judge responsible for the case issued an international arrestwarrant against Mr. Habr on 19 September 2005;

5. Whereas Belgium states that the said arrest warrant, in which spe-cific reference is made to the lifting by Chad on 7 October 2002 of anyimmunities which Mr. Habr might have claimed, was transmitted toSenegal on 19 September 2005 with a view to obtaining his extradition;and whereas it further states that the Chambre daccusation of the DakarCourt of Appeal found, on 25 November 2005, that it could not act onthis warrant because it concerned acts committed by a Head of State in

the exercise of his functions;6. Whereas Belgium states moreover that the case was passed on to theAfrican Union by Senegal on 7 December 2005; and whereas it adds that,following a decision taken at Banjul (Gambia) on 2 July 2006 by the

140OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE OR EXTRADITE (ORDER 28 V 09)

5


8/39

2 juillet 2006, par la confrence des chefs dEtat et de gouvernement delUnion africaine, le Sngal a modifi, dune part, son Code pnal, en y

intgrant lincrimination de gnocide, de crime de guerre et de crimecontre lhumanit, et, dautre part, son Code de procdure pnale, en per-mettant au juge sngalais dexercer la comptence universelle;

7. Considrant que la Belgique se plaint de ce que le Sngal, faisanttat des difficults financires qui lempcheraient dorganiser le procs,na conduit aucune procdure pnale lencontre de M. Habr;

8. Considrant que la Belgique, dans sa requte, affirme que le faitpour le Sngal davoir omis de poursuivre M. Habr, dfaut de lextra-der vers la Belgique, pour rpondre des faits de torture qui lui sont impu-ts viole la convention contre la torture, notamment larticle 5, para-

graphe 2, larticle 7, paragraphe 1, larticle 8, paragraphe 2, et larticle 9,paragraphe 1, de cet instrument; et quelle ajoute que cette mme omis-sion viole galement lobligation, en vertu du droit international coutu-mier, de rprimer les crimes de droit international humanitaire figurantdans de nombreux actes manant dorganisations internationales et non-ce dans le droit conventionnel;

9. Considrant que la Belgique soutient quun diffrend loppose ainsiau Sngal sur linterprtation et lapplication de la convention contre latorture et du droit coutumier relatif la rpression des crimes contrelhumanit;

10. Considrant quau terme de sa requte la Belgique formule les

demandes suivantes:

La Belgique prie respectueusement la Cour de dire et jugerque:

la Cour est comptente pour connatre du diffrend qui opposele Royaume de Belgique la Rpublique du Sngal en ce quiconcerne le respect par le Sngal de son obligation de pour-suivre M. H. Habr ou de lextrader vers la Belgique aux fins depoursuites pnales;

la demande belge est recevable; la Rpublique du Sngal est oblige de poursuivre pnalement

M. H. Habr pour des faits qualifis notamment de crimes detorture et de crimes contre lhumanit qui lui sont imputs entant quauteur, coauteur ou complice;

dfaut de poursuivre M. H. Habr, la Rpublique du Sngalest oblige de lextrader vers le Royaume de Belgique pour quilrponde de ces crimes devant la justice belge;

et quelle se rserve le droit de modifier et de complter ladite requte;

11. Considrant que, le 19 fvrier 2009, aprs avoir dpos sa requte,

la Belgique a prsent une demande en indication de mesures conserva-toires en se rfrant larticle 41 du Statut de la Cour et aux articles 73 75 de son Rglement;

12. Considrant que, dans sa demande en indication de mesures conser-


6


9/39

Summit of African Union Heads of State and Government, Senegal amend-ed its Penal Code to include the offences of genocide, war crimes and crimes

against humanity and also its Code of Criminal Procedure to enable Sene-galese courts to exercise universal jurisdiction;

7. Whereas Belgium complains that Senegal, referring to financial dif-ficulties which prevent it from organizing the trial, has not brought anycriminal proceedings against Mr. Habr;

8. Whereas Belgium, in its Application, contends that Senegals failureto prosecute Mr. Habr, if he is not extradited to Belgium to answer forthe acts of torture that are alleged against him, violates the Conventionagainst Torture, in particular Article 5, paragraph 2, Article 7, para-

graph 1, Article 8, paragraph 2, and Article 9, paragraph 1, of thatinstrument; and whereas it adds that this failure also violates the obligationunder customary international law to punish crimes under internationalhumanitarian law which is to be found in numerous acts emanatingfrom international organizations and is established in treaty law;

9. Whereas Belgium maintains that a dispute thus exists between itselfand Senegal over the interpretation and application of the Conventionagainst Torture and of the customary law relating to the punishment ofcrimes against humanity;

10. Whereas, at the end of its Application, Belgium presents the fol-

lowing submissions:

Belgium respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declarethat:

the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between theKingdom of Belgium and the Republic of Senegal regardingSenegals compliance with its obligation to prosecute Mr. H.Habr or to extradite him to Belgium for the purposes of criminalproceedings;

Belgiums claim is admissible; the Republic of Senegal is obliged to bring criminal proceedings

against Mr. H. Habr for acts including crimes of torture andcrimes against humanity which are alleged against him asperpetrator, co-perpetrator or accomplice;

failing the prosecution of Mr. H. Habr, the Republic of Senegalis obliged to extradite him to the Kingdom of Belgium so that hecan answer for these crimes before the Belgian courts;

and whereas it reserves the right to revise or supplement the terms of theApplication;

11. Whereas on 19 February 2009, having filed its Application, Bel-

gium submitted a Request for the indication of provisional measures,invoking Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 73 to 75 ofthe Rules of Court;

12. Whereas, in its Request for the indication of provisional measures,


6


10/39

vatoires, la Belgique renvoie aux bases de comptence de la Cour invo-ques dans sa requte (voir paragraphe 2 ci-dessus);

13. Considrant que, dans cette demande en indication de mesuresconservatoires, la Belgique expose que

[a]ctuellement, M. H. Habr est en rsidence surveille Dakar,mais [qu]il ressort dun entretien donn par le prsident sngalais,A. Wade, Radio-France-Internationale que le Sngal pourraitmettre fin cette mise en rsidence surveille sil ne trouve pas lebudget quil estime ncessaire lorganisation du procs deM. H. Habr;

et que, selon la Belgique, dans cette hypothse, il serait facile pour

M. Habr de quitter le Sngal et de se soustraire toute poursuite;14. Considrant que, dans ladite demande en indication de mesuresconservatoires, la Belgique fait valoir que, si M. Habr devait quit-ter le territoire sngalais, cela porterait un prjudice irrparableau droit que le droit international confre la Belgique dexercer despoursuites pnales contre lintress ; quelle soutient en outre quecela violerait lobligation du Sngal de poursuivre M. Habr pourles crimes de droit international qui lui sont imputs, dfaut delextrader;

15. Considrant que, au terme de sa demande en indication de mesuresconservatoires, la Belgique prie la Cour

dindiquer, en attendant quelle rende un arrt dfinitif sur le fond,que le Sngal doit prendre toutes les mesures en son pouvoir pourque M. H. Habr reste sous le contrle et la surveillance des autori-ts judiciaires du Sngal afin que les rgles de droit internationaldont la Belgique demande le respect puissent tre correctementappliques;

16. Considrant que, le 19 fvrier 2009, date laquelle la requteet la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires ont t dpo-ses au Greffe, le greffier a inform le Gouvernement sngalais du

dpt de ces documents et lui en a adress immdiatement des copiescertifies conformes en application du paragraphe 2 de larticle 40du Statut ainsi que du paragraphe 4 de larticle 38 et du paragraphe 2de larticle 73 du Rglement ; et que le greffier a galement infor-m le Secrtaire gnral de lOrganisation des Nations Unies de cedpt;

17. Considrant que, le 23 fvrier 2009, le greffier a inform les Partiesque le prsident de la Cour, en application du paragraphe 3 de larticle 74du Rglement, avait fix aux 6, 7 et 8 avril 2009 les dates de la procdureorale sur la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires;

18. Considrant que, en attendant que la communication prvue auparagraphe 3 de larticle 40 du Statut et larticle 42 du Rglement ait teffectue par transmission du texte bilingue imprim de la requte aux


7


11/39

Belgium refers to the same bases of jurisdiction of the Court relied on inits Application (see paragraph 2 above);

13. Whereas, in this Request for the indication of provisional meas-ures, Belgium states that

[a]t present, Mr. H. Habr is under house arrest in Dakar, but ittranspires from an interview which the President of Senegal,A. Wade, gave to Radio France Internationale that Senegal couldlift his house arrest if it fails to find the budget which it regards asnecessary in order to hold the trial of Mr. H. Habr;

and whereas, according to Belgium, in such an event, it would be easy for

Mr. Habr to leave Senegal and avoid any prosecution;14. Whereas, in the said Request for the indication of provisionalmeasures, Belgium argues that if Mr. Habr were to leave the territory ofSenegal, that would cause irreparable prejudice to the right conferred onBelgium by international law to bring criminal proceedings against him;whereas it further maintains that this would violate Senegals obligationto prosecute Mr. Habr for the crimes under international law which arealleged against him, failing his extradition;

15. Whereas, at the end of its Request for provisional measures, Bel-gium asks the Court

to indicate, pending a final judgment on the merits, provisionalmeasures requiring Senegal to take all the steps within its powerto keep Mr. H. Habr under the control and surveillance of the

judicial authorities of Senegal so that the rules of internationallaw with which Belgium requests compliance may be correctlyapplied;

16. Whereas on 19 February 2009, the date on which the Applicationand the Request for the indication of provisional measures were filed inthe Registry, the Registrar informed the Senegalese Government of the

filing of these documents and transmitted certified copies of them to itforthwith, in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute andArticle 38, paragraph 4, and Article 73, paragraph 2, of the Rules ofCourt; and whereas the Registrar also notified the Secretary-General ofthe United Nations of this filing;

17. Whereas on 23 February 2009, the Registrar informed the Partiesthat the President of the Court, in accordance with Article 74, para-graph 3, of the Rules of Court, had fixed 6, 7 and 8 April 2009 as thedates for the oral proceedings on the Request for the indication of pro-

visional measures;18. Whereas, pending the notification provided for by Article 40, para-graph 3, of the Statute and Article 42 of the Rules of Court by transmis-sion of the printed bilingual text of the Application to the Members of


7


12/39

Membres des Nations Unies, le greffier a, le 24 fvrier 2009, inform cesEtats du dpt de la requte et de son objet, ainsi que du dpt de la

demande en indication de mesures conservatoires;19. Considrant que, le 2 avril 2009, le Sngal a fait parvenir la

Cour les documents sur lesquels il souhaitait sappuyer laudience; etque copie de ces documents a t immdiatement communique la Bel-gique; et considrant que, le 3 avril 2009, la Belgique a son tour faitparvenir la Cour les documents sur lesquels elle souhaitait sappuyer laudience; et que copie desdits documents a t immdiatement commu-nique au Sngal;

20. Considrant que, la Cour ne comptant sur le sige aucun juge de lanationalit des Parties, chacune delles a procd, dans lexercice du droit

que lui confre le paragraphe 3 de larticle 31 du Statut, la dsignationdun juge ad hoc en laffaire; que la Belgique a dsign cet effet M. Phi-lippe Kirsch, et le Sngal M. Serge Sur;

21. Considrant que, lors des audiences publiques tenues les 6, 7 et8 avril 2009, conformment au paragraphe 3 de larticle 74 du Rglement,des observations orales sur la demande en indication de mesures conser-vatoires ont t prsentes par:

Au nom de la Belgique: M. Paul Rietjens, agent,M. Grard Dive, coagent,M. Eric David,

sir Michael Wood;Au nom du Sngal: S. Exc. M. Cheikh Tidiane Thiam, agent,

M. Demba Kandji, coagent,M. Ndiaw Diouf,M. Alioune Sall,M. Oumar Gaye,M. Abdoulaye Dianko;

et quau cours des audiences des questions ont t poses par certainsmembres de la Cour, questions auxquelles des rponses ont t apportesoralement et par crit;

* * *

22. Considrant que, lors de son premier tour dobservations orales, laBelgique a ritr largumentation dveloppe dans sa requte et sademande en indication de mesures conservatoires, et a avanc que lesconditions requises pour que la Cour indique les mesures demandestaient remplies;

23. Considrant que la Belgique a raffirm que, sagissant deM. Habr, un diffrend lopposait au Sngal quant linterprtation et

lapplication de lobligation dextrader ou de poursuivre les auteurs decrimes de torture et de crimes contre lhumanit telle qunonce par ledroit international conventionnel, et notamment par larticle 7 de laconvention contre la torture, ainsi que par le droit international coutu-


8


13/39

the United Nations, the Registrar informed those States on 24 Febru-ary 2009 of the filing of the Application and its subject, and of the filing

of the Request for the indication of provisional measures;19. Whereas, on 2 April 2009, Senegal transmitted to the Court the

documents on which it wished to rely during the hearings; and whereascopies of those documents were immediately communicated to Belgium;whereas, on 3 April 2009, Belgium in turn transmitted to the Court thedocuments on which it wished to rely during the hearings; and whereascopies of those documents were immediately communicated to Senegal;

20. Whereas, since the Court includes upon the Bench no judge of thenationality of the Parties, each of them proceeded, in exercise of the right

conferred by Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute, to choose a judgead hoc in the case; for this purpose Belgium chose Mr. Philippe Kirsch,and Senegal chose Mr. Serge Sur;

21. Whereas, at the public hearings held on 6, 7 and 8 April 2009, inaccordance with Article 74, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, oralobservations on the Request for the indication of provisional measureswere presented by the following representatives of the Parties:

On behalf of Belgium: Mr. Paul Rietjens, Agent,Mr. Grard Dive, Co-Agent,Mr. Eric David,

Sir Michael Wood;On behalf of Senegal: H.E. Mr. Cheikh Tidiane Thiam, Agent,

Mr. Demba Kandji, Co-Agent,Mr. Ndiaw Diouf,Mr. Alioune Sall,Mr. Oumar Gaye,Mr. Abdoulaye Dianko;

and whereas, during the hearings, questions were put by certain Membersof the Court, to which replies were given orally and in writing;

* * *

22. Whereas, in its first round of oral observations, Belgium reiteratedthe arguments developed in its Application and its Request for the indi-cation of provisional measures, and argued that the conditions necessaryfor the Court to indicate the requested measures had been fulfilled;

23. Whereas Belgium reaffirmed that, in respect of Mr. Habr, a dis-pute existed between itself and Senegal over the interpretation and appli-

cation of the obligation to extradite or prosecute the perpetrators ofcrimes of torture and crimes against humanity, as set forth in conven-tional international law, in particular Article 7 of the Convention againstTorture, and customary international law; whereas it contended that


8


14/39

mier; quelle a fait valoir que le Sngal ne pouvait sacquitter de laditeobligation en remettant M. Habr une organisation internationale ou

un Etat nen ayant pas demand lextradition aux fins de poursuites;24. Considrant que la Belgique a galement fait tat de certaines

dclarations rcentes de M. Abdoulaye Wade, le prsident de la Rpu-blique du Sngal, qui, selon elle, laissaient entendre que le Sngal, silne disposait pas des fonds ncessaires pour lorganisation du procs deM. Habr, pourrait, tout moment, renoncer poursuivre lintress,mettre fin sa surveillance ou le transfrer vers un autre Etat; et que laBelgique en a conclu quil existait un risque rel et imminent que lesdroits faisant lobjet de sa requte subissent un prjudice irrparable;

*

25. Considrant que, lors de son premier tour dobservations orales, leSngal a affirm que, depuis 2005, il avait accept, par la voix du prsi-dent Wade, de faire juger M. Habr par les juridictions sngalaises et derespecter ainsi ses obligations au regard du droit international; quil asoutenu que, les conditions requises pour lindication de mesures conser-vatoires ntant pas remplies en lespce, la demande de la Belgique ten-dant ce que de telles mesures soient indiques ntait pas fonde; etquil a ajout que lindication des mesures sollicites par la Belgique pr-

jugerait du fond et priverait le Sngal des droits quil tient des rgles

internationales, et notamment de la convention contre la torture;26. Considrant que le Sngal a expos que, suite la demande

dextradition de M. Habr formule par la Belgique, lintress avait tarrt et plac sous crou extraditionnel le 15 novembre 2005; quil aconfirm que, par un arrt en date du 25 novembre 2005, la chambredaccusation de la cour dappel de Dakar stait dclare incomptentepour connatre de la demande dextradition dirige contre M. Habr, aumotif que lintress jouissait dune immunit de juridiction en raisonde sa qualit de chef dEtat au moment des faits (voir paragraphe 5 ci-dessus); et que le Sngal a prcis avoir inform la Belgique, le 23 d-

cembre 2005, de cette dcision ayant mis dfinitivement fin la procduredextradition;

27. Considrant que le Sngal a expliqu que, dans ces circonstances,il avait recherch lappui de lUnion africaine et saisi celle-ci du dossier;quil a confirm que, le 2 juillet 2006, les chefs dEtat et de gouvernementde lUnion africaine lui avaient donn mandat de poursuivre et jugerM. Habr; et quil a galement confirm que, par suite, il avait pris uncertain nombre de mesures dans la perspective de la tenue du procs deM. Habr au Sngal, savoir, notamment, lintroduction des infractionslies aux crimes internationaux dans sa lgislation pnale, llargisse-

ment de la comptence des juridictions sngalaises et la recherche desressources financires ncessaires lorganisation dun tel procs (voirparagraphe 6 ci-dessus);

28. Considrant que le Sngal, la lumire des faits ainsi rappels, a


9


15/39

Senegal could not divest itself of the said obligation by handing Mr. Habrover to an international organization or to a State which had not sought

his extradition for the purposes of prosecution;24. Whereas Belgium also referred to certain recent statements made

by Mr. Abdoulaye Wade, President of the Republic of Senegal, which,according to Belgium, indicated that if Senegal did not have available toit the funds required to organize the trial of Mr. Habr, it could at anytime abandon its prosecution of the person in question, cease monitoringhim or transfer him to another State; and whereas Belgium concludedthat there was consequently a real and imminent risk of irreparable preju-dice to the rights which formed the subject of its Application;

*

25. Whereas, in its first round of oral observations, Senegal assertedthat, since 2005, it had been willing, as declared by President Wade to tryMr. Habr in the Senegalese courts and thus to comply with its obliga-tions under international law; whereas it maintained that, as the condi-tions required for the indication of provisional measures were notfulfilled in the present case, Belgiums request for such measures to beindicated was unfounded; and whereas it added that the indication of themeasures sought by Belgium would prejudge the merits and deprive Sen-egal of the rights it held under international rules, in particular the Con-

vention against Torture;26. Whereas Senegal stated that, following Belgiums request for the

extradition of Mr. Habr, the latter had been arrested and placed in cus-tody on 15 November 2005 pending extradition; whereas it confirmedthat, by a judgment dated 25 November 2005, the Chambre daccusationof the Dakar Court of Appeal had held that it was without jurisdictionover the request for Mr. Habrs extradition, on the grounds that heenjoyed immunity from jurisdiction by virtue of having been Head ofState at the time the acts occurred (see paragraph 5 above); and whereasSenegal stated that on 23 December 2005 it had informed Belgium of this

decision, which put an end to the extradition proceedings;

27. Whereas Senegal explained that, in these circumstances, it hadsought the support of the African Union, and seised it of the matter;whereas it confirmed that, on 2 July 2006, the Heads of State andGovernment of the African Union had given Senegal a mandate to pro-secute and try Mr. Habr ; and whereas it also confirmed that sub-sequently it had taken a number of measures with a view to the holdingof Mr. Habrs trial in Senegal, in particular the introduction of offenceslinked to international crimes into its criminal legislation, the broad-

ening of the jurisdiction of the Senegalese courts and the search for thefinancial resources needed for the organization of such a trial (see para-graph 6 above);

28. Whereas Senegal, in the light of the facts as thus restated, maintained


9


16/39

soutenu quil nexistait aucun diffrend juridique entre les Parties portantsur linterprtation ou lapplication dune rgle de droit international, et

notamment des rgles nonces par la convention contre la torture; quila fait valoir que la comptence prima facie de la Cour ntait en cons-quence pas tablie; et que le Sngal a avanc, en outre, que la requte dela Belgique tait irrecevable dans la mesure o il navait pas t satisfaitaux conditions procdurales poses par larticle 30 de la conventioncontre la torture;

29. Considrant que le Sngal a par ailleurs soulign que lentretienaccord Radio-France-Internationale par le prsident Wade le 2 fvrier2009, auquel la Belgique stait rfre, confirmait que le Sngal avait lavolont de poursuivre le processus entam, que M. Habr faisait lobjet

de mesures de surveillance auxquelles le Sngal nenvisageait pas demettre fin et que les ngociations internationales tendant obtenir lesappuis ncessaires lorganisation de son procs suivaient leur cours;que le Sngal en a dduit quil nexistait aucune urgence qui justifieraitlindication par la Cour des mesures conservatoires sollicites par laBelgique; et que le Sngal a avanc, en outre, que la Belgique navaitpas identifi les droits quelle souhaitait voir protger, ni le prjudiceirrparable que ces droits pourraient subir en labsence dindication demesures conservatoires;

30. Considrant que le Sngal a conclu de ce qui prcde que lademande en indication de mesures conservatoires introduite par la Bel-

gique devait tre rejete;

*

31. Considrant que, lors de son second tour dobservations orales, laBelgique a raffirm que M. Habr devait tre poursuivi et jug au Sn-gal et que ce ntait qu dfaut de le poursuivre que le Sngal devaitextrader lintress vers la Belgique pour quil rponde des faits qui luisont imputs;

32. Considrant que la Belgique a prcis que le diffrend qui loppose

au Sngal porte, dune part, sur la question de savoir si lobligation dejuger M. Habr dcoule du mandat donn par lUnion africaine au Sn-gal, ainsi que, dautre part, sur la question de savoir si le Sngal sestdores et dj acquitt de ses obligations en vertu des dispositions de laconvention contre la torture en transmettant le dossier lUnion afri-caine ; que la Belgique sest galement plainte de ce que le Sngalvoquait systmatiquement des raisons financires pour justifier soninaptitude lexcution de ses obligations conventionnelles et coutu-mires; et que la Belgique a ajout que les procdures engages parM. Habr devant la Cour de justice de la Communaut conomique

des Etats de lAfrique de lOuest (CEDEAO) et la Cour africaine desdroits de lhomme lui faisaient craindre que lune de ces juridictionsrgionales ne rende une ordonnance susceptible de porter atteinte auxdroits de la Belgique en la prsente espce;


10


17/39

that no legal dispute existed between the Parties on the interpretation orapplication of an international legal rule and, in particular, of the rules

set forth in the Convention against Torture; whereas it contended thatthe Courts prima facie jurisdiction had consequently not been estab-lished; and whereas Senegal argued, moreover, that Belgiums Requestwas inadmissible since the procedural conditions laid down by Article 30of the Convention against Torture had not been fulfilled;

29. Whereas Senegal also pointed out that the interview given toRadio France Internationale by President Wade on 2 February 2009, towhich Belgium had referred, confirmed that Senegal was willing to pur-sue the process under way, that Mr. Habr was being kept under surveil-

lance, a situation which Senegal did not envisage ending, and that theinternational negotiations aimed at obtaining the necessary support toorganize his trial were following their course; whereas this led Senegal toconclude that no urgency existed which might justify the indication bythe Court of the provisional measures requested by Belgium; and whereasSenegal further argued that Belgium had not identified the rights itwished to see protected, nor the irreparable prejudice which might becaused to those rights without the indication of provisional measures;

30. Whereas Senegal concluded from the foregoing that the Requestfor the indication of provisional measures submitted by Belgium should

be rejected;

*

31. Whereas, in its second round of oral observations, Belgiumreaffirmed that Mr. Habr should be prosecuted and tried in Senegal, andthat only if it failed to prosecute him should Senegal extradite Mr. Habrto Belgium to answer for the acts alleged against him;

32. Whereas Belgium stated that the dispute between itself and

Senegal concerned, first, the question of whether the obligationto try Mr. Habr derived from the mandate given to Senegal by theAfrican Union and, secondly, whether Senegal had already fulfilled itsobligations under the provisions of the Convention against Torture bypassing on the case to the African Union; whereas Belgium also comp-lained that Senegal was systematically bringing up financial reasonsto justify its incapacity and failure to fulfil its conventional or custom-ary obligations ; and whereas Belgium added that the proceedingsinstituted in respect of Mr. Habr before the Court of Justice of theEconomic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Afri-

can Court of Human Rights raised concerns that one of these regionalcourts might render an order liable to prejudice Belgiums rights in thecurrent proceedings;


10


18/39

33. Considrant que, en rponse une question pose par un membrede la Cour laudience, la Belgique a indiqu quune dclaration solen-

nelle prononce devant la Cour par lagent du Sngal au nom de songouvernement pourrait suffire la Belgique pour considrer que sademande en indication de mesures conservatoires naurait plus dobjet, siladite dclaration tait claire et sans condition, et quelle garantissait quetoutes les mesures ncessaires seraient prises par le Sngal pour queM. Habr ne quitte pas le territoire sngalais tant que la Cour nauraitpas rendu sa dcision dfinitive; et que la Belgique a prcis souhaiterque, si une telle dclaration tait faite, la Cour la reprenne dans le dispo-sitif de lordonnance quelle serait amene rendre;

34. Considrant quau terme de son second tour de plaidoiries la Bel-

gique a prsent les conclusions suivantes:La Belgique prie respectueusement la Cour dindiquer les me-

sures conservatoires suivantes: il est demand la Rpublique duSngal de prendre toutes les mesures en son pouvoir pour queM. Hissne Habr reste sous le contrle et la surveillance des auto-rits sngalaises afin que les rgles de droit international dont laBelgique demande le respect puissent tre correctement appliques;

*

35. Considrant que, lors de son second tour dobservations orales, leSngal a raffirm que larrt de la chambre daccusation de la courdappel de Dakar avait mis fin de manire dfinitive la procduredextradition initie par la Belgique;

36. Considrant que le Sngal a soutenu que son obligation de pour-suivre M. Habr dcoulait des dispositions de la convention contre la tor-ture et quil stait toujours rfr cette convention pour justifier lesmesures prises en vue du procs; que le Sngal a expos quil avait saisilUnion africaine dans le but dobtenir les soutiens financiers et lentraide

judiciaire ncessaires lorganisation du procs, mais qu aucun moment

il navait fond son obligation de poursuivre M. Habr sur une rsolutionde lorganisation; et que le Sngal a conclu quil tait ds lors manifestequil nexistait aucun diffrend entre les Parties;

37. Considrant que le Sngal a encore fait observer que les dclara-tions faites aux mdias par le prsident Wade ne dmontraient lexistencedaucun risque rel et srieux que M. Habr puisse se soustraire la jus-tice sngalaise; et quil a ajout que, en tout tat de cause, un prjudiceventuel caus aux droits de la Belgique, malgr les mesures de sur-veillance mises en uvre par le Sngal lgard de M. Habr, ne sauraittre qualifi dirrparable dans la mesure o lobligation dextrader ou de

poursuivre est, selon la Belgique, une norme coutumire et, de ce fait,opposable par la Belgique tout Etat o M. Habr pourrait se trouver;38. Considrant que, en rponse la question pose par un membre de

la Cour laudience vise au paragraphe 33 ci-dessus, le Sngal a dclar


11


19/39

33. Whereas, in response to a question put by a Member of the Courtat the hearings, Belgium indicated that a solemn declaration made before

the Court by the Agent of Senegal, in the name of his Government, couldbe sufficient for Belgium to consider that its Request for the indication ofprovisional measures had no further raison dtre, provided that such adeclaration would be clear and unconditional, and that it would guaran-tee that all the necessary measures would be taken by Senegal to ensurethat Mr. Habr did not leave Senegalese territory before the Court deliv-ered its final Judgment; and whereas Belgium expressed the wish that, ifsuch a declaration were made, the Court should include it in the opera-tive part of its Order;

34. Whereas, at the end of its second round of oral arguments,

Belgium presented the following submissions:Belgium respectfully asks the Court to indicate the following

provisional measures: the Republic of Senegal is requested to takeall the steps within its power to keep Mr. Hissne Habr under thecontrol and surveillance of the Senegalese authorities so that therules of international law with which Belgium requests compliancemay be correctly applied;

*

35. Whereas, in its second round of oral observations, Senegal re-affirmed that the judgment of the Chambre daccusation of the DakarCourt of Appeal had put a definitive end to the extradition proceedingsinitiated by Belgium;

36. Whereas Senegal maintained that its obligation to prosecuteMr. Habr derived from the provisions of the Convention against Tor-ture and that it had always referred to that Convention to justify themeasures taken with a view to the trial; whereas Senegal stated that ithad seised the African Union in order to obtain the financial support andmutual judicial assistance required for the organization of the trial, but

that at no point had it based its obligation to prosecute Mr. Habr on aresolution of that organization; and whereas Senegal concluded that thelack of a dispute between the Parties was therefore manifest;

37. Whereas Senegal further pointed out that the statements made tothe media by President Wade did not demonstrate the existence of anyreal or serious risk that Mr. Habr might evade Senegalese justice; andwhereas it added that, in any event, any possible prejudice to Belgiumsrights, despite the surveillance measures put in place by Senegal in respectof Mr. Habr, could not be described as irreparable since the obligationto extradite or prosecute was, according to Belgium, a customary norm

and therefore enforceable by Belgium against any State where Mr. Habrmight happen to be;38. Whereas, in response to the question put by a Member of the

Court at the hearings, referred to in paragraph 33 above, Senegal solemnly


11


20/39

solennellement quil ne permettrait pas M. Habr de quitter son terri-toire pendant toute la dure de la prsente instance;

39. Considrant quau terme de son second tour dobservations oralesle Sngal a prsent les conclusions suivantes: Le Sngal prie respec-tueusement la Cour de rejeter les mesures conservatoires demandes parla Belgique;

* * *

COMPTENCE PRIMA FACIE

40. Considrant que, en prsence dune demande en indication demesures conservatoires, point nest besoin pour la Cour, avant de dciderdindiquer ou non de telles mesures, de sassurer de manire dfinitivequelle a comptence quant au fond de laffaire, mais quelle ne peut indi-quer ces mesures que si les dispositions invoques par le demandeur sem-blent prima facie constituer une base sur laquelle sa comptence pourraittre fonde;

41. Considrant que la Belgique entend fonder la comptence de laCour sur larticle 30 de la convention contre la torture et sur les dcla-rations faites par les deux Etats en application du paragraphe 2 delarticle 36 du Statut; et que la Cour doit maintenant chercher tablir

si la clause attributive de juridiction contenue dans la convention ou siles dclarations invoques lui confrent effectivement une comptence

prima facie pour se prononcer sur le fond, lui permettant, si elle estimeque les circonstances lexigent, dindiquer des mesures conservatoires;

* *

42. Considrant que le paragraphe 1 de larticle 30 de la conventioncontre la torture se lit comme suit:

Tout diffrend entre deux ou plus des Etats parties concernantlinterprtation ou lapplication de la prsente convention qui nepeut tre rgl par voie de ngociation est soumis larbitrage lademande de lun dentre eux. Si, dans les six mois qui suivent la datede la demande darbitrage, les parties ne parviennent pas se mettredaccord sur lorganisation de larbitrage, lune quelconque dentreelles peut soumettre le diffrend la Cour internationale de Justiceen dposant une requte conformment au Statut de la Cour.;

43. Considrant que tant la Belgique que le Sngal sont parties laconvention contre la torture; que le Sngal a ratifi cette convention le

21 aot 1986 sans mettre de rserve larticle 30, paragraphe 1, de celle-ci; et que la Belgique a fait de mme le 25 juin 1999;44. Considrant que la Belgique fait valoir quil existe un diffrend

entre les Parties sur linterprtation et lapplication de ladite convention


12


21/39

declared that it would not allow Mr. Habr to leave its territory while thepresent case was pending before the Court;

39. Whereas at the end of its second round of oral observations Sen-egal presented the following submissions: Senegal respectfully asks theCourt to reject the provisional measures requested by Belgium on 7 April2009;

* * *

PRIMA FACIE JURISDICTION

40. Whereas, when dealing with a request for the indication of provi-sional measures, there is no need for the Court, before deciding whetheror not to indicate such measures, to satisfy itself in a definitive mannerthat it has jurisdiction as regards the merits of the case; but whereas itmay only indicate those measures if the provisions relied on by the Appli-cant appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which its jurisdiction couldbe founded;

41. Whereas Belgium is seeking to found the jurisdiction of the Courton Article 30 of the Convention against Torture and on the basis of thedeclarations made by the two States pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2,of the Statute; and whereas the Court must now endeavour to establish

whether the compromissory clause under the convention, or the declara-tions relied upon do indeed confer upon it prima facie jurisdiction to ruleon the merits, enabling it to indicate provisional measures if it considersthat the circumstances so require;

* *

42. Whereas Article 30, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Tor-ture reads as follows:

Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning theinterpretation or application of this Convention which cannot besettled through negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, besubmitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of therequest for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organi-zation of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dis-pute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformitywith the Statute of the Court.;

43. Whereas both Belgium and Senegal are parties to the Conventionagainst Torture; whereas Senegal ratified that Convention on 21 August

1986 without entering any reservation as to Article 30, paragraph 1; andwhereas Belgium did likewise on 25 June 1999;44. Whereas Belgium contends that a dispute exists between the Parties

on the interpretation and application of the said Convention, and that by


12


22/39

et que, en omettant de poursuivre M. Habr, dfaut de lextrader vers laBelgique, pour rpondre des faits de torture qui lui sont imputs, le Sn-

gal a viol la convention contre la torture, notamment son article 5, para-graphe 2, son article 7, paragraphe 1, son article 8, paragraphe 2, et sonarticle 9, paragraphe 1 ; considrant que la Belgique soutient que desngociations ce sujet ont t entames en 2005 entre les Parties et queces ngociations, au cours desquelles elle sest expressment rfre auxdispositions de la convention contre la torture, nont pas permis de rglerle diffrend, ce quelle a formellement constat dans la note verbalequelle a adresse au Sngal le 20 juin 2006; que la Belgique soutient enoutre quelle a propos le mme jour au Sngal de recourir une pro-cdure darbitrage, proposition laquelle les autorits sngalaises nont

pas donn suite, ni dans les six mois ni plus tard, alors que la Belgique arappel son offre de recourir larbitrage par note verbale en date du8 mai 2007 et a confirm la persistance du diffrend par note verbale endate du 2 dcembre 2008; considrant que la Belgique conclut de ce quiprcde que les conditions auxquelles larticle 30 de la convention contrela torture assujettit la comptence de la Cour sont remplies;

45. Considrant que le Sngal estime quil nexiste manifestement pasde diffrend sur linterprtation ou lapplication de la convention dans lamesure o il ressort des termes de la requte que la Belgique demande la Cour de dire et juger quil est oblig de poursuivre pnalementM. Habr; que le Sngal souligne quil a dj pris les dispositions appro-

pries pour se conformer cette obligation; considrant que le Sngalsoutient en outre que la requte belge est irrecevable dans la mesure oles conditions procdurales poses larticle 30 de la convention contre latorture ne sont pas remplies; que le Sngal fait valoir que la Belgiquesest borne demander des renseignements aux autorits sngalaisessur ltat des procdures, ce qui ne saurait quivaloir de vritables ngo-ciations; et quil prtend que la note verbale en date du 20 juin 2006 laquelle se rfre la Belgique, et qui contiendrait son offre de recourir larbitrage, demeure introuvable dans les archives du Sngal; consid-rant que le Sngal conclut de ce qui prcde que larticle 30 de la conven-

tion contre la torture ne saurait fonder la comptence de la Cour enlespce;

* *

46. Considrant que larticle 30 de la convention contre la torturesubordonne la comptence de la Cour lexistence dun diffrend entredeux ou plus des Etats parties concernant linterprtation ou lapplicationde la prsente convention; quau stade actuel de la procdure il appar-tient dabord la Cour dtablir si, prima facie, un tel diffrend existait

la date du dpt de la requte, puisque, en rgle gnrale, cest cettedate que, selon la jurisprudence de la Cour, sa comptence doit sappr-cier (voir Sud-Ouest africain (Ethiopie c. Afrique du Sud; Libria c. Afri-que du Sud), exceptions prliminaires, arrt, C.I.J. Recueil 1962, p. 344;


13


23/39

failing to prosecute Mr. Habr, in default of extraditing him to Belgiumto answer for the acts of torture that are alleged against him, Senegal has

violated the Convention against Torture, in particular Article 5, para-graph 2, Article 7, paragraph 1, Article 8, paragraph 2, and Article 9,paragraph 1; whereas Belgium maintains that negotiations on this sub-

ject began between the Parties in 2005 and that those negotiations, inwhich Belgium expressly referred to the provisions of the Conventionagainst Torture, did not allow the dispute to be settled, as it observedformally in its Note Verbale to Senegal of 20 June 2006; whereas Belgiumfurther maintains that it suggested recourse to arbitration to Senegal thesame day, a proposal to which the Senegalese authorities did not respond,either within six months or thereafter, while Belgium reiterated its pro-

posal of recourse to arbitration in a Note Verbale dated 8 May 2007, andconfirmed the continuation of the dispute by a Note Verbale of 2 Decem-ber 2008; whereas Belgium concludes from the foregoing that the condi-tions to which Article 30 of the Convention against Torture subjects the

jurisdiction of the Court have been fulfilled;

45. Whereas Senegal takes the view that there is manifestly no disputeover the interpretation or application of the Convention, since it followsfrom the terms of the Application that Belgium is requesting the Court toadjudge and declare that Senegal is under an obligation to prosecuteMr. Habr; whereas Senegal emphasizes that it has already taken appro-

priate steps to comply with that obligation ; whereas Senegal furthermaintains that Belgiums Application is inadmissible because the pro-cedural conditions specified in Article 30 of the Convention against Torturehave not been fulfilled; whereas Senegal contends that Belgium merelyrequested information from the Senegalese authorities on the status ofthe proceedings, which cannot be regarded as real negotiations ; andwhereas it claims that the Note Verbale dated 20 June 2006 to which Bel-gium refers, and which is said to contain its offer of recourse to arbitra-tion, cannot be found in Senegals archives; whereas Senegal concludesfrom the foregoing that Article 30 of the Convention against Torture

cannot found the jurisdiction of the Court in the present case;

* *

46. Whereas Article 30 of the Convention against Torture makes theCourts jurisdiction conditional on the existence of a dispute betweentwo or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application ofthis Convention; whereas, at this stage of the proceedings, the Courtmust begin by establishing whether, prima facie, such a dispute existed on

the date the Application was filed, since, as a general rule, it is on thatdate, according to the Courts jurisprudence, that its jurisdiction must beconsidered (see South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v.South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1962,


13


24/39

Actions armes frontalires et transfrontalires (Nicaragua c. Hondu-ras), comptence et recevabilit, arrt, C.I.J. Recueil 1988, p. 95, par. 66;

Questions dinterprtation et dapplication de la convention de Montralde 1971 rsultant de lincident arien de Lockerbie (Jamahiriya arabelibyenne c. Etats-Unis dAmrique), exceptions prliminaires, arrt, C.I.J.Recueil 1998, p. 130, par. 43);

47. Considrant que, suite larrt de la cour dappel de Dakar met-tant fin la procdure dextradition de M. Habr vers la Belgique, leSngal a saisi lUnion africaine et en a inform la Belgique par note ver-bale en date du 23 dcembre 2005; que, par note verbale en date du11 janvier 2006, la Belgique a contest que le Sngal puisse se conformer lobligation nonce larticle 7 de la convention contre la torture en

dfrant une question relevant de ladite convention une organisationinternationale; que la Belgique a soutenu que le Sngal ne remplissaitpas ses obligations en vertu de la convention contre la torture, notam-ment son article 7; et que le Sngal a estim avoir pris des mesures poursacquitter desdites obligations et quil a raffirm sa volont de conti-nuer le processus en cours par lequel il entend assumer intgralement sesobligations dEtat partie la convention contre la torture; considrantque, au vu de ce qui prcde, il apparat prima facie quun diffrend surlinterprtation et lapplication de la convention opposait les Parties ladate du dpt de la requte;

48. Considrant que, compte tenu de la faon dont les Parties ont pr-

sent leurs positions laudience, la Cour examinera prsent si un teldiffrend continue, prima facie, dexister; que le Sngal a affirm que lesobligations qui sont les siennes ne dcoulent pas du mandat reu delUnion africaine en 2006 et quun Etat partie la convention contre latorture ne peut pas sacquitter des obligations nonces son article 7 parle simple fait de saisir une organisation internationale; que les Partiessemblent nanmoins continuer de sopposer sur dautres questions dinter-prtation ou dapplication de la convention contre la torture, telles quecelle du dlai dans lequel les obligations prvues larticle 7 doivent treremplies ou celle des circonstances (difficults financires, juridiques ou

autres) qui seraient pertinentes pour apprcier sil y a eu ou non manque-ment auxdites obligations; que les vues des Parties, par ailleurs, conti-nuent apparemment de diverger sur la faon dont le Sngal devraitsacquitter de ses obligations conventionnelles ; et quen consquenceil appert que, prima facie, un diffrend de la nature de celui vis lar-ticle 30 de la convention contre la torture demeure entre les Parties,mme si sa porte a pu voluer depuis le dpt de la requte;

*

49. Considrant que la Cour examinera prsent si les conditions pro-cdurales poses larticle 30 de ladite convention sont runies; que cettedisposition exige en premier lieu que le diffrend soumis la Cour soit deceux qui ne peu[vent] pas tre rgl[s] par voie de ngociation; consid-


14


25/39

p. 344; Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Hondu-ras), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 95,

para. 66; Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Mon-treal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (LibyanArab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections,Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 130, para. 43);

47. Whereas, following the judgment of the Dakar Court of Appealbringing to an end the proceedings on Mr. Habrs extradition to Bel-gium, Senegal seised the African Union and informed Belgium of this ina Note Verbale dated 23 December 2005; whereas, in a Note Verbale of11 January 2006, Belgium disputed whether Senegal could comply withthe obligation set forth in Article 7 of the Convention against Torture by

referring a matter covered by that Convention to an international organi-zation; whereas Belgium argued that Senegal was not fulfilling its obli-gations under the Convention against Torture, in particular Article 7thereof; whereas Senegal considered that it has taken measures in orderto fulfill the said obligations and that it reaffirmed its will to continue theongoing process, in which it intends to assume in full its obligations as aState party to the Convention against Torture; whereas, in view of theforegoing, it appears prima facie that a dispute as to the interpretationand application of the Convention existed between the Parties on thedate the Application was filed;

48. Whereas the Court will next consider whether such a dispute con-

tinues, prima facie, to exist in the light of the way in which the Partiesexplained their positions at the hearings; whereas Senegal has affirmedthat its obligations do not derive from the mandate given by the AfricanUnion in 2006 and that a State party to the Convention against Torturecannot fulfil the obligations under Article 7 thereof by the mere act ofreferring the matter to an international organization; whereas the Partiesnonetheless seem to continue to differ on other questions relating to theinterpretation or application of the Convention against Torture, such asthat of the time frame within which the obligations provided for in Arti-cle 7 must be fulfilled or that of the circumstances (financial, legal or

other difficulties) which might be relevant in considering whether or nota failure to fulfil those obligations has occurred; whereas, moreover, theParties seem to continue to hold differing views as to how Senegal shouldfulfil its treaty obligations; and whereas in consequence it appears thatprima facie a dispute of the kind contemplated by Article 30 of the Con-vention against Torture continues to exist between the Parties, even if thescope of that dispute may have changed since the Application was filed;

*

49. Whereas the Court will now consider whether the procedural con-ditions laid down by Article 30 of the said Convention have been ful-filled; whereas that provision requires, first, that any dispute submitted tothe Court should be such as cannot be settled through negotiation;


14


26/39

rant que la Belgique soutient quelle a tent, sans y parvenir, de rglerle diffrend par des ngociations avec le Sngal (voir paragraphe 44

ci-dessus); considrant que le Sngal estime au contraire que la corres-pondance diplomatique invoque par la Belgique ne peut tre considrecomme valant ngociations (voir paragraphe 45 ci-dessus); et que cettecorrespondance ne permet pas davantage de conclure lchec des ngo-ciations supposes;

50. Considrant quau stade de lexamen de sa comptence prima facieil suffit la Cour de constater que la Belgique a tent de ngocier; que, delavis de la Cour, la correspondance diplomatique, notamment la noteverbale en date du 11 janvier 2006 par laquelle la Belgique entendaitapporter certaines prcisions dans le cadre de la procdure de ngocia-

tion vise larticle 30 de la convention contre la torture ..., montre quela Belgique a tent de rsoudre le diffrend concern par voie de ngocia-tion et que les ngociations ainsi proposes ne sauraient tre rputesavoir rsolu ce diffrend; et que la Cour en conclut que la condition selonlaquelle le diffrend qui lui est soumis doit tre de ceux qui ne peu[vent]pas tre rgl[s] par voie de ngociation doit tre regarde comme rem-plie prima facie ;

51. Considrant que larticle 30 de la convention contre la tortureprvoit en deuxime lieu quun diffrend entre Etats parties qui nauraitpas t rgl par voie de ngociation devra tre soumis larbitrage la demande de lun dentre eux, et que la Cour ne pourra en tre

saisie que si les Parties ne parviennent pas se mettre daccord surlorganisation de cet arbitrage dans les six mois compter de la date laquelle il aura t demand ; considrant que la Belgique a indiquque le Sngal navait pas rpondu la proposition formelle de recourir une procdure darbitrage, formule dans sa note verbale en date du20 juin 2006, et a soulign que cette proposition avait t ritre parnote verbale en date du 8 mai 2007; et considrant que le Sngalaffirme que la note verbale belge du 20 juin 2006 demeure introuvableet que la proposition prtendument ritre tait pour le moinsambigu;

52. Considrant que, de lavis de la Cour, la note verbale en date du20 juin 2006 contient une offre explicite de la Belgique au Sngal derecourir une procdure darbitrage, conformment au paragraphe 1 delarticle 30 de la convention contre la torture, pour rgler le diffrendconcernant lapplication de la convention au cas de M. Habr; qu cestade de la procdure il suffit la Cour de constater que, mme suppo-ser que ladite note verbale ne soit jamais parvenue son destinataire,la note verbale en date du 8 mai 2007 sy rfre explicitement; et quilest confirm que cette seconde note a t communique au Sngal etreue par celui-ci plus de six mois avant la date de la saisine de la Cour le

19 fvrier 2009;

* *


15


27/39

whereas Belgium maintains that, it had attempted unsuccessfully toresolve the dispute by negotiations with Senegal (see paragraph 44 above);

whereas Senegal takes the view, on the contrary, that the diplomatic cor-respondence relied on by Belgium cannot be regarded as amounting tonegotiations (see paragraph 45 above); and, further, that that correspon-dence does not justify the conclusion that the supposed negotiations hadfailed;

50. Whereas, at the stage of considering prima facie jurisdiction, it issufficient for the Court to note that an attempt has been made by Bel-gium to negotiate; whereas, it considers that the diplomatic correspon-dence, in particular the Note Verbale of 11 January 2006, wherebyBelgium wished to submit certain clarifications to the Government of Senegal

within the framework of the negotiation procedure covered by Arti-cle 30 of the Convention against Torture . . ., shows that Belgiumattempted to resolve the said dispute by negotiation and that it cannot beconcluded that the negotiations thus proposed had the effect of resolvingthe dispute; and whereas the Court thus concludes that the requirementthat the dispute is one which cannot be settled through negotiationmust be regarded as having been satisfied prima facie;

51. Whereas Article 30 of the Convention against Torture provides,secondly, that a dispute between States parties which has not beensettled through negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, besubmitted to arbitration, and that it may be referred to the Court

only if the parties are unable to agree on the organization of sucharbitration within six months from the date when it was requested;whereas Belgium has indicated that Senegal did not respond to theformal proposal for recourse to arbitration made in its Note Verbaleof 20 June 2006, and pointed out that this proposal was reiteratedin its Note Verbale of 8 May 2007; and whereas Senegal statesthat the Belgian Note Verbale of 20 June 2006 cannot be found andthat the proposal allegedly reiterated was at the very leastambiguous;

52. Whereas, in the view of the Court, the Note Verbale of 20 June 2006contains an explicit offer from Belgium to Senegal to have recourse toarbitration, pursuant to Article 30, paragraph 1, of the Conventionagainst Torture, in order to settle the dispute concerning the applicationof the Convention in the case of Mr. Habr; whereas, at this stage of theproceedings, it is sufficient for the Court to note that, even supposingthat the said Note Verbale never reached its addressee, the Note Verbaleof 8 May 2007 explicitly refers to it; and whereas it has been confirmedthat this second Note was communicated to Senegal and received by itmore than six months before the date of referral to the Court, i.e.,

19 February 2009;

* *


15


28/39

53. Considrant que, la lumire de ce qui prcde, la Cour estimeavoir comptence prima facie en vertu de larticle 30 de la convention

contre la torture pour connatre de laffaire;54. Considrant par ailleurs que la comptence prima facie que laCour tire de la convention contre la torture est suffisante pour lui per-mettre, si les circonstances lexigent, dindiquer les mesures conserva-toires demandes par la Belgique; et quil ny a ds lors pas lieu derechercher, ce stade de la procdure, si les dclarations faites par lesParties en vertu du paragraphe 2 de larticle 36 du Statut pourraient ga-lement fonder, prima facie, la comptence de la Cour pour connatrede laffaire;

* *

55. Considrant que, au vu des conclusions auxquelles elle est parve-nue aux paragraphes 53 et 54 ci-dessus, la Cour peut examiner la demandeen indication de mesures conservatoires;

* * *

LIEN ENTRE LE DROIT PROTG ET LES MESURES DEMANDES

56. Considrant que le pouvoir dindiquer des mesures conservatoiresque la Cour tient de larticle 41 de son Statut a pour objet de sauvegarderle droit de chacune des parties en attendant quelle rende sa dcision;quil sensuit que la Cour doit se proccuper de sauvegarder par de tellesmesures les droits que larrt quelle aura ultrieurement rendre pour-rait ventuellement reconnatre, soit au demandeur, soit au dfendeur(Application de la convention pour la prvention et la rpression du crimede gnocide (Bosnie-Herzgovine c. Yougoslavie (Serbie et Montn-

gro)), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 8 avril 1993, C.I.J. Recueil

1993, p. 19, par. 34; Frontire terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun etle Nigria (Cameroun c. Nigria), mesures conservatoires, ordonnancedu 15 mars 1996, C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 22, par. 35; Applicationde la convention internationale sur llimination de toutes les formes dediscrimination raciale (Gorgie c. Fdration de Russie), mesuresconservatoires, ordonnance du 15 octobre 2008, C.I.J. Recueil 2008,p. 388-389, par. 118); quun lien doit donc tre tabli entre les mesuresconservatoires sollicites et les droits qui font lobjet de linstancependante devant la Cour sur le fond de laffaire;

57. Considrant que le pouvoir de la Cour dindiquer des mesuresconservatoires ne devrait tre exerc que si les droits allgus par une par-tie apparaissent au moins plausibles;

* *


16


29/39

53. Whereas, in the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that ithas prima facie jurisdiction under Article 30 of the Convention against

Torture to entertain the case;54. Whereas, moreover, the prima facie jurisdiction which the Court

derives from the Convention against Torture is sufficient to enable it, ifthe circumstances so require, to indicate the provisional measuresrequested by Belgium ; and whereas consequently there is no need toascertain, at this stage of the proceedings, whether the declarations madeby the Parties pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute mightalso, prima facie, afford a basis on which the Courts jurisdiction couldbe founded;

* *

55. Whereas, in the light of the findings it has reached in paragraphs 53and 54 above, the Court may examine the Request for the indication ofprovisional measures;

* * *

LINK BETWEEN THE RIGHT PROTECTED AND THE MEASURES REQUESTED

56. Whereas the power of the Court to indicate provisional measuresunder Article 41 of the Statute has as its object the preservation of therespective rights of the parties pending its decision; whereas it followsthat the Court must be concerned to preserve by such measures the rightswhich may subsequently be adjudged by the Court to belong either to theApplicant or to the Respondent (Application of the Convention on thePrevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herze-

govina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Provisional Measures,Order of 8 April 1993, I.C.J. Reports 1993, p. 19, para. 34; Land and

Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v.Nigeria), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, I.C.J. Reports1996 (I), p. 22, para. 35; Application of the International Convention onthe Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Rus-sian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 October 2008, I.C.J.Reports 2008, pp. 388-389, para. 118); whereas a link must therefore beestablished between the provisional measures requested and the rightswhich are the subject of the proceedings before the Court as to the meritsof the case;

57. Whereas the power of the Court to indicate provisional measuresshould be exercised only if the Court is satisfied that the rights assertedby a party are at least plausible;

* *


16


30/39

58. Considrant que la Belgique indique que sa demande vise prot-ger son droit de voir le Sngal poursuivre directement M. Habr ou,

dfaut, le droit dobtenir son extradition; que la Belgique soutient que laconvention contre la torture confre tous les Etats parties le droitdobtenir le respect par le Sngal des dispositions de la convention; etque la Belgique prcise que sa demande dextradition concernantM. Habr, conscutive aux procdures engages en Belgique par des vic-times de nationalit belge, lui confre un droit spcifique de voir le Sn-gal poursuivre M. Habr ou, dfaut, dobtenir son extradition confor-mment larticle 7 de ladite convention;

59. Considrant que le Sngal soutient que le seul droit qui pourraittre reconnu aux Etats parties la convention contre la torture serait le

droit dexiger dun autre Etat partie quil juge lauteur dun acte de tor-ture qui se trouverait sur son territoire ou, dfaut, de demander sonextradition; et que, en consquence, sil est estim que les articles 5, para-graphe 2, et 7, paragraphe 1, de la convention crent un droit pour unEtat partie, ce ne peut tre que celui de revendiquer lextradition, un teldroit ne pouvant cependant prvaloir sur celui dun Etat assumant sonobligation de juger;

* *

60. Considrant qu ce stade de la procdure la Cour na pas tablir

de faon dfinitive lexistence des droits revendiqus par la Belgique ni examiner la qualit de la Belgique les faire valoir devant la Cour; et queces droits, en tant que fonds sur une interprtation possible de laconvention contre la torture, apparaissent en consquence plausibles;

61. Considrant que les mesures conservatoires demandes en lespcetendent garantir que le Sngal prendra toutes les mesures en son pou-voir pour que M. Habr reste sous le contrle et la surveillance des auto-rits sngalaises jusqu ce que la Cour ait rendu sa dcision dfinitive;que le dpart ventuel de M. Habr du territoire sngalais serait suscep-

tible daffecter les droits que la Belgique pourrait se voir reconnatre aufond, mme tels que qualifis par le Sngal; que, ds lors, au regard delobjet de linstance, les mesures conservatoires sollicites peuvent treindiques si les circonstances lexigent;

* * *

RISQUE DE PRJUDICE IRRPARABLE ET URGENCE

62. Considrant cependant que le pouvoir de la Cour dindiquer des

mesures conservatoires ne sera exerc que sil y a urgence, cest--dire silexiste un risque rel et imminent quun prjudice irrparable soit causaux droits en litige avant que la Cour nait rendu sa dcision dfinitive(voir par exemple Passage par le Grand-Belt (Finlande c. Danemark),


17


31/39

58. Whereas Belgium points out that its request is intended to protectits right to see Senegal prosecute Mr. Habr directly or, failing that, the

right to obtain his extradition; whereas Belgium maintains that the Con-vention against Torture confers upon all the States parties the right toobtain compliance by Senegal with the provisions of the Convention; andwhereas Belgium states that its request for the extradition of Mr. Habr,resulting from the proceedings brought in Belgium by victims of Belgiannationality, confers a specific right upon it to see Senegal prosecuteMr. Habr or, failing that, to obtain his extradition in accordance withArticle 7 of the said Convention;

59. Whereas Senegal argues that the only right which might be attrib-uted to States parties to the Convention against Torture is the right to

require another State party to try the perpetrator of an act of torture whois present in its territory or, failing that, to request his extradition; andthat, consequently, if it is considered that Article 5, paragraph 2, andArticle 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention create a right for a State party,it can only be the right to demand extradition, which cannot howeverprevail over the right of a State which takes on its obligation to hold atrial;

* *

60. Whereas at this stage of the proceedings the Court does not need

to establish definitively the existence of the rights claimed by Belgium orto consider Belgiums capacity to assert such rights before the Court; andwhereas the rights asserted by Belgium, being grounded in a possibleinterpretation of the Convention against Torture, therefore appear to beplausible;

61. Whereas the provisional measures requested in the current pro-ceedings are aimed at ensuring that Senegal takes all necessary measuresin its power to keep Mr. Habr under the surveillance and control of theSenegalese authorities until the Court has given its final decision; whereasthe possible departure of Mr. Habr from Senegalese territory would be

likely to affect the rights which might be adjudged to belong to Belgiumon the merits, even as qualified by Senegal; whereas, therefore, in view ofthe subject-matter of the proceedings, the provisional measures requestedmay be indicated if the circumstances so require;

* * *

RISK OF IRREPARABLE PREJUDICE AND URGENCY

62. Whereas however the power of the Court to indicate provisional

measures will be exercised only if there is urgency, in the sense that thereis a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice may be caused tothe rights in dispute before the Court has given its final decision (see, forexample, Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark), Provi-


17


32/39

mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 29 juillet 1991, C.I.J. Recueil1991, p. 17, par. 23; Certaines procdures pnales engages en France

(Rpublique du Congo c. France), mesure conservatoire, ordonnance du17 juin 2003, C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 107, par. 22; Usines de pte papiersur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay), mesures conservatoires,ordonnance du 23 janvier 2007, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (I), p. 11, par. 32;Application de la convention internationale sur llimination de toutesles formes de discrimination raciale (Gorgie c. Fdration de Russie), me-sures conservatoires, ordonnance du 15 octobre 2008, C.I.J. Recueil 2008,p. 392-393, par. 129); et que la Cour doit donc examiner si, dans la pr-sente instance, une telle urgence existe;

* *

63. Considrant que la Belgique, dans sa demande en indication demesures conservatoires, fait rfrence un entretien donn Radio-France-Internationale le 2 fvrier 2009 par le prsident Wade (voirparagraphe 13 ci-dessus); que la Belgique sest galement rfre, laudience, des entretiens accords par le prsident Wade au journalespagnol Pblico, au journal franais La Croix ainsi qu lagenceFrance-Presse, en date du 14 octobre 2008, du 18 dcembre 2008 etdu 3 fvrier 2009 respectivement, au cours desquels la question delorganisation du procs de M. Habr et de son financement a t

voque; que la Belgique relve qu ces diverses occasions le prsidentdu Sngal a indiqu, selon le cas, quil nallait pas garder indfinimentM. Habr au Sngal, quil ferait que M. Habr abandonne le Sngal,mme sil ne savait pas o lintress irait, quil accepterait de le jugersi on lui en donnait les moyens, ou encore que, si le procs ne se tenaitpas, il renverrait M. Habr chez lui ou au prsident de lUnion africaine;quil en ressort, selon la Belgique, que le Sngal pourrait mettre fin la mise en rsidence surveille laquelle est soumis M. Habr si le finan-cement ncessaire lorganisation de son procs ntait pas assur;

64. Considrant que la Belgique en dduit, dune part, quil existe un

risque rel que le Sngal cause un prjudice irrparable aux droits de laBelgique; que la Belgique expose que, si M. Habr devait tre autoris quitter le territoire sngalais, il pourrait se soustraire toute poursuite etil deviendrait impossible pour le Sngal de se conformer, notamment,aux obligations nonces par la convention contre la torture; et quelleajoute que la violation de lobligation de poursuivre ou dextrader ainsicause ne saurait tre rpare par dautres moyens, notamment par descompensations pcuniaires;

65. Considrant que la Belgique fait observer, dautre part, que les d-clarations voquant le dpart de M. Habr du territoire sngalais ont t

faites des dates rcentes par la plus haute autorit de lEtat; et quelleen infre que le risque de prjudice doit tre considr comme imminent;66. Considrant que le Sngal souligne quil ne ressort pas des propos

du prsident Wade que les droits que la Belgique prtend tenir de la


18


33/39

sional Measures, Order of 29 July 1991, I.C.J. Reports 1991, p. 17,para. 23; Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo

v. France), Provisional Measure, Order of 17 June 2003, I.C.J. Reports2003, p. 107, para. 22; Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v.Uruguay), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2007, I.C.J.Reports 2007 (I), p. 11, para. 32; Application of the International Con-vention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgiav. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 Octo-ber 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, pp. 392-393, para. 129); and whereas theCourt must therefore consider whether such urgency exists in these pro-ceedings;

* *

63. Whereas Belgium, in its Request for the indication of provisionalmeasures, makes reference to an interview given on 2 February 2009 toRadio France Internationale by President Wade (see paragraph 13above) ; whereas Belgium also referred at the hearings to interviews givenby President Wade to the Spanish newspaper Pblico, the French news-paper La Croix and Agence France Presse on 14 October 2008, 18 Decem-ber 2008 and 3 February 2009 respectively, in which the organization ofthe trial of Mr. Habr and its funding were discussed; whereas Belgiumpoints out that at different junctures on these various occasions, the

President of Senegal said that he was not going to keep Mr. Habr inSenegal indefinitely, that he would make the latter leave Senegal, eventhough he did not know where Mr. Habr would go, that he was willingto try him but that he had to be given the resources, and that, if the trialwas not held, he would either send Mr. Habr back home or transfer himto the Chairperson of the African Union; whereas, according to Belgium,it follows from this that Senegal could lift the house arrest imposed onMr. Habr if the funding needed for the organization of his trial were notprovided;

64. Whereas Belgium infers from this, in the first instance, that there is

a real risk of Senegal causing irreparable prejudice to the rights of Bel-gium; whereas Belgium asserts that, should Mr. Habr receive permis-sion to leave Senegalese territory, he might evade any prosecution and itwould become impossible for Senegal to comply, in particular, with theobligations laid down by the Convention against Torture; and whereas itadds that the violation of the obligation to prosecute or extradite thuscaused could not be redressed by other means, in particular by monetarycompensation;

65. Whereas Belgium points out, moreover, that the statements con-cerning Mr. Habr leaving Senegalese territory were made recently by the

highest State authority; whereas it infers from this that the risk of preju-dice must be regarded as imminent;66. Whereas Senegal argues that it does not follow from the comments

by President Wade that irreparable prejudice might be caused to the


18


34/39

convention contre la torture pourraient subir un prjudice irrparable;quil assure ne pas avoir lintention de mettre fin aux mesures efficaces

de contrle et de surveillance dont fait lobjet M. Habr; quil prcisenotamment que M. Habr ne dispose pas dun titre de voyage valide etque sa surveillance est assure par une unit dlite des forces militairessngalaises; et quil souligne en outre que les mesures dj mises enuvre par lui sont conformes aux dispositions de la convention et iden-tiques aux mesures conservatoires demandes par la Belgique;

67. Considrant que le Sngal soutient par ailleurs que la dclarationdu prsident Wade Radio-France-Internationale, dont se prvaut laBelgique pour demander des mesures conservatoires, a t extraite de soncontexte et sest vu attribuer ... un sens quelle navait videmment

pas ; quil allgue que, au contraire, ladite dclaration dmontre lavolont du Sngal de tenir un procs, le prsident Wade prcisant ce quisuit au sujet du financement dudit procs:

[Aprs toutes les promesses dappui qui ont t faites], comme atranait un peu, jai dit il faut que le [soutien financier promis] soitrellement disponible... Ctait pour pousser un peu pour quonacclre... Ds que nous aurons les moyens, le procs va commencer.Il ny a absolument aucun doute.;

quil souligne que les ngociations avec lUnion europenne et aveclUnion africaine, visant lobtention des fonds ncessaires aux pour-suites de M. Habr, se droulent bien; que le Sngal considre que lesmesures prises par les autorits sngalaises attestent que celles-ci excu-tent de bonne foi leurs obligations en vertu de la convention contre latorture; et que, de lavis du Sngal, il en rsulte quil nexiste aucunrisque imminent justifiant lindication de mesures conservatoires;

68. Considrant que, comme il a t indiqu plus haut (voir para-graphes 29 et 66), le Sngal a affirm plusieurs reprises laudiencequil nenvisageait pas de mettre fin la surveillance et au contrle exercssur la personne de M. Habr tant avant quaprs que les fonds promis par

la communaut internationale soient mis sa disposition pour assurerlorganisation de la procdure judiciaire; que le coagent du Sngal, au

Documents

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE RECUEIL DES ARRE|TS, AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES QUESTIONS CONCERNANT L’OBLIGATION DE POURSUIVRE OU D’EXTRADER