“As the Kosovo authorities have not received any request for Mr.Dowa’s extradition, it is our view that it is now the legal responsibility of the Zimbabwe authorities…” REDRESS believes that the references to extradition were an attempt by the UN to be seen to have tried to comply with CAT. After receiving Michael Steiner’s letter early in July 2003 REDRESS had let it be known at various levels in UNMIK and through other relevant organs of the UN that it was trying to persuade the UK to seek extradition, but that this was not a straightforward process. The UN was aware from the start that the alleged torturer’s presence in Kosovo had not been raised by another State but by a non-governmental organisation, obviously with no direct power to seek the removal of Dowa to another jurisdiction to stand trial. The Zimbabwe victims themselves had even less chance as individuals to influence events. In the circumstances it can be asked what “sufficient opportunity to request Mr. Dowa’s extradition” actually existed? Little more than two months after UNMIK had informed REDRESS that it did not have the resources to do anything, the UN facilitated Dowa’s return to Zimbabwe.55 The UN, under whose auspices CAT and the broad international campaign for human rights is supposed to be co-ordinated, had paid little more than lip-service to the anti-torture movement when finding an alleged perpetrator within its own ranks. Its priority appears to have been to side-step an embarrassing problem instead of “desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world.”56 The possibility of extradition is discussed further below.57 The Secretary-General’s letter went on to state that UNMIK had forwarded the results of its “internal inquiry” to the Kosovo Department of Justice “as the competent authority in Kosovo for taking any decision on Mr. Dowa’s investigation and possible prosecution,” and that: “After reviewing the matter, the Department of Justice concluded that it lacked the necessary human and financial resources to conduct a satisfactory investigation.” The forwarding of the results to the Department of Justice was apparently the submission in terms of Article 7 (1).58 Any decision of the competent authorities is also governed by CAT: “These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State.”59 REDRESS acknowledges that the authorities in Kosovo have to deal with a huge burden of gross and systematic violations of human rights, including war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and torture arising from recent conflict. In the circumstances prosecutions have to be prioritised, which would have made it difficult to divert limited 55 56 57 58 59 By requesting the Zimbabwe government to withdraw him: see below page 13. Part of the preamble to CAT. Page 13-14. See above, page 7. Article 7 (2). 12