the State.36 All States have a clear obligation to prevent impunity for such crimes, and to ensure that all alleged perpetrators are tried and punished regardless of where the torture occurred. There was therefore no doubt that the Kosovo courts, under the authority of UNMIK, had jurisdiction over Dowa in regard to the allegations of torture in Zimbabwe. It was clear from the affidavits of the victims presented to UNMIK that he was specifically and directly implicated in several serious allegations of torture, and that there was no prospect of an impartial prosecution in Zimbabwe. All of this, together with supporting medical and other background evidence, constituted a strong prima facie case of Dowa having perpetrated acts of torture in 2001 and 2002, including electric shock torture and beatings on the bare soles of the feet (falanga). The dossier also recorded that the victims were willing and able to travel to Kosovo to give oral evidence and/or to assist the authorities there in any way, including identifying the suspect. In the circumstances CAT provides: “Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence [of torture] is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.”37 Furthermore: “Such State shall immediately make an inquiry into the facts.”38 Although it was no doubt obvious, REDRESS explicitly advised UNMIK that it was extremely likely that Dowa would seek to avoid being held accountable by asking his government to remove him urgently to the safety of Zimbabwe, and that even if he didn’t specifically request this the Zimbabwe government would endeavour to recall him to avoid the political and diplomatic embarrassment of him being investigated and prosecuted externally for alleged torture committed in Zimbabwe.39 UNMIK was therefore requested to take all appropriate measures in terms of CAT to secure Dowa’s continued presence within the jurisdiction, to conduct a full investigation with a view to prosecution (in the absence of a bona fide extradition request), and, 36 See Reparation: A sourcebook for victims of torture and other violations of human rights and international and humanitarian law, REDRESS Trust, London, March 2003, page 26, especially footnote 103, http://www.redress.org There is a growing international legal literature on universal jurisdiction: see www.u-j.info There is no dispute as to its specific incorporation into CAT: see ‘Pinochet (No. 3)’ (supra). 37 Article 6 (1). 38 Article 6 (2). 39 Perhaps equally obviously, UNMIK was told that the Zimbabwe government would not wish Dowa’s conduct to be the subject of proceedings, as any such proceedings would in turn directly expose the government to further international scrutiny and criticism for its appalling human rights record. 8