THE CASE OF HENRY DOWA carry out an investigation of the alleged crimes, with a view to requesting the extradition of Dowa. A correspondence was entered into with the Attorney General, and documents and legal arguments were submitted to him as well as directly to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.50 The possibility of extraditing Dowa to face trial in the UK was still being explored in September 2003 when a letter was received from the UN, and soon afterwards REDRESS learned from sources inside Zimbabwe that Dowa had returned. The Secretary-General decides The UN letter came not from UNMIK but from New York, written on behalf of the Secretary-General by Jean-Marie Guehenno, Under-Secretary-General in the Department for Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO).51 It confirmed that UNMIK had decided not to pursue the criminal prosecution of Dowa, and then went on to state: “However, pursuant to [CAT], which is part of the applicable law in Kosovo, UNMIK has carried out an internal enquiry into the allegations against Mr.Dowa. To this end, UNMIK took the necessary steps to ensure the presence of Mr.Dowa in Kosovo while the enquiry was being completed.” The “internal inquiry” was presumably in terms of Article 6 (2), held belatedly as it ought to have occurred immediately the authorities were aware that an alleged torturer was in Kosovo.52 Furthermore, it is not clear what was meant by an “internal” inquiry and how that differed from the inquiry provided for in Article 6 (2). Finally, Article 6 (2) requires an immediate inquiry into the facts. How far UNMIK’s “internal inquiry” went is not known, as the only other information given on this point was that it “included an interview with Mr.Dowa.” The reference to “…[taking] the necessary steps to ensure the presence of Mr.Dowa…” was clearly in terms of Article 6 (1)53 and was consistent with what REDRESS had already learned unofficially.54 It appears that although he was never physically detained his movement, at least out of Kosovo if not beyond Prizren, was prevented. The letter also contained two references to extradition. Firstly, it stated that by keeping Dowa in Kosovo while the inquiry was being completed: “This also afforded any interested State sufficient opportunity to request Mr. Dowa’s extradition to stand trial for the crimes that he is alleged to have committed.” Secondly, after dealing with developments after the inquiry, the letter said: 50 There was no legal obligation on the UK authorities, either under domestic or international law, to seek extradition. REDRESS argued that the UK could (and should) seek to extradite Dowa in terms of domestic extradition legislation and bi-lateral and European extradition treaties, given that under Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 torture committed outside the UK is indictable in UK courts. The UK is a signatory to CAT and has incorporated its provisions into domestic legislation. However, requesting extradition remains at the discretion of the UK authorities, even given the presence of victims in the country. 51 It was dated 19 September 2003. 52 See Article 6 (2) above, page 8. 53 Ibid. 54 See above page 10. 11