Background Briefing

II. Background

Hissène Habré’s Rule

Hissène Habré ruled Chad from 1982 until he was deposed in 1990 by current President Idriss Déby Itno and fled the country. The rule of his one-party regime was marked by widespread atrocities. Habré periodically targeted various ethnic groups such as the Sara (1984), Hadjerai (1987), Chadian Arabs, and the Zaghawa (1989-90), killing and arresting group members en masse when he believed that their leaders posed a threat to the regime. The exact number of Habré’s victims is not known. A 1992 Chadian truth commission accused Habré’s regime of some 40,000 political murders and systematic torture. Most predations were carried out by Habré’s political police, the Documentation and Security Directorate (DDS), whose directors all came from Habré’s small Gorane ethnic group and which reported directly to Habré. Torture was a common practice in the DDS detention centers. Among the most common forms of torture was arbatachar binding, in which a prisoner’s four limbs were tied together behind his or her  back, leading to loss of circulation and paralysis.

In 2001 Human Rights Watch discovered the files of the DDS. Among the tens of thousands of documents in the files were daily lists of prisoners and of deaths in detention, interrogation reports, surveillance reports, and death certificates. The files detail how Habré placed the DDS under his direct authority, organized ethnic cleansing, and kept tight control over DDS operations. They reveal the names of 1,208 persons who died in various jails, including one on the grounds of Habré’s presidential compound. The documents mention a total of 12,321 victims of different forms of abuse. In these files alone, Hissène Habré received 1,265 direct communications from the DDS about the status of 898 detainees.

The truth commission also accused Habré of stealing some 3.32 billion CFA francs (more than US$6.62 millionat today’s rates) from the national treasury in the days before he fled Chad. The total amount taken by Habré during his rule is said to be considerably higher.

After Habré fled Chad he soon settled in Senegal. The truth commission recommended the prosecution of Hissène Habré and his accomplices. The Chadian government did not seek Habré’s extradition, however. As noted below, the government of Chad has supported Hissène Habré’s prosecution abroad.

Habré Is Indicted in Senegal

In January 2000 a number of Chadian victims filed a criminal complaint against Hissène Habré in Senegal. Jurisdiction was asserted on the basis, inter alia, of the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by Senegal,1 which obliges states to either prosecute or extradite alleged torturers who enter their territory.

In February 2000 a Senegalese court charged Habré with torture and crimes against humanity, and placed him under house arrest. After Abdoulaye Wade was elected president of Senegal in March 2000, however, he stated publicly on a number of occasions that Habré would not be tried in Senegal. In July 2000 the magistrate who had indicted Habré and was pursuing the pretrial investigation was transferred from his post, and shortly thereafter the court of appeals dismissed the charges, ruling that Senegalese courts had no competence to pursue acts of torture that were not committed in Senegal. The Cour de Cassation, Senegal’s court of final appeals, upheld the ruling on March 20, 2001, holding that Habré could not stand trial in Senegal for crimes allegedly committed elsewhere because Senegal had not incorporated the provisions of the Convention against Torture into its code of criminal procedure.2

Following the Cour de Cassation decision, the Chadian victims/plaintiffs lodged a communication against Senegal with the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), alleging a violation of the Convention against Torture.3 In April 2001 President Wade declared publicly that he had given Habré one month to leave Senegal. In a preliminary ruling issued in April 2001, however, the CAT called on Senegal to “take all necessary measures to prevent Hissène Habré from leaving the territory of Senegal except pursuant to an extradition demand.”4 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan privately appealed to President Wade to heed the committee’s call. Senegal has indeed scrupulously respected that request, and Hissène Habré remains in Senegal to this day.

The Case Moves to Belgium

In the face of the Senegalese dismissal, another group of Hissène Habré’s victims filed a case against Habré in Belgium, to create the possibility of extraditing him to stand trial there. Twenty-one victims, including three Belgian citizens, were plaintiffs in that action before Judge Daniel Fransen of the Brussels District Court.

Belgian law at the time expressly incorporated the principle of “universal jurisdiction”—that every state may bring to justice the perpetrators of particular crimes of international concern, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, no matter where the crime was committed, and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators or their victims. (In July 2003 that law was repealed, but the repeal did not affect the Habré case because the investigation had already begun and because there were Belgian citizen plaintiffs.)

In February and March 2002 Judge Fransen visited Chad together with a Belgian state prosecutor and four policemen. The team interviewed witnesses and Habré-era officials, toured former grave sites, and visited the five N’Djamena jails where the DDS had systematically tortured prisoners; they were accompanied at the jails by former inmates who described their inhumane treatment and torture. The team took copies of the DDS files to Belgium for forensic analysis.

In October 2002 the government of Chad told Judge Fransen that it would waive any immunity that Habré might seek to assert.

Finally, on September 19, 2005, after a four-year investigation, Judge Fransen issued an international arrest warrant against Hissène Habré. The same day Belgium asked for Habré’s extradition from Senegal.

Senegal Sends the Extradition Request to the African Union

The extradition request received the support of such international authorities as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Chairman of the African Union Commission Alpha Oumar Konaré, and Manfred Nowak, the special rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Chadian victims came to Senegal to tell their stories, and Senegalese victims of Habré’s rule confirmed their accounts. At the same time, Habré used the money he had allegedly stolen from the Chadian treasury to build support in influential sectors of Senegalese society.

The Senegalese authorities arrested Hissène Habré on November 15, 2005. However, following the recommendation of the state prosecutor, on November 25 the Indicting Chamber of the Court of Appeals of Dakar ruled that it had no jurisdiction to rule on an extradition request against a former head of state. Under Senegalese law, the decision thus went to President Wade. On November 26, the day after the court decision, the interior minister of Senegal issued an order placing Hissène Habré “at the disposition of the President of the African Union.” On November 27 the foreign minister of Senegal, Cheikh Tidiane Gadio, announced in a communiqué that

The State of Senegal, sensitive to the complaints of victims who are seeking justice, will abstain from any act which could permit Hissène Habré to not face justice. It therefore considers that it is up to the African Union summit to indicate the jurisdiction which is competent to try this matter.5

 At its January 2006 summit the African Union set up a Committee of Eminent African Jurists (CEAJ) to consider the options available for Hissène Habré’s trial, taking into account, inter alia, “fair trial standards,” “efficiency in terms of cost and time of trial,” “accessibility to the trial by alleged victims as well as witnesses,” and “priority for an African mechanism.”6

Just after the AU Summit the Belgian government reiterated that it was waiting for Senegal’s response to its extradition request and that if Senegal refused to extradite Habré or prosecute him in Senegal, Belgium would invoke the provisions of the UN Convention against Torture that provide for arbitration and recourse to the International Court of Justice.7

The United Nations Rules Against Senegal

In a decision rendered on May 19, 2006, on the merits of the victims’ communication, the UN Committee Against Torture concluded that Senegal had violated the UN Convention against Torture by failing to prosecute or extradite Habré. The Committee called on Senegal “to submit the present case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution or, failing that, since Belgium has made an extradition request, to comply with that request, or, should the case arise, with any other extradition request made by another State, in accordance with the Convention.”8 The Committee also noted Senegal’s obligation to “adopt the necessary measures, including legislative measures, to establish its jurisdiction” over Hissène Habré’s alleged crimes.9

The AU Mandates Senegal to Prosecute Habré “On Behalf of Africa”

In its report to the July 2006 AU Summit, the CEAJ noted, “Since Habré is within its territory Senegal should exercise jurisdiction over him. As a State party to the Convention Against Torture, Senegal is under an obligation to comply with all its provisions.” Citing the CAT ruling, it added that “[i]t is therefore incumbent on Senegal in accordance with its international obligations, to take steps, not only to adapt its legislation, but also to bring Habré to trial.” It therefore concluded that “Senegal is the country best suited to try Habré as it is bound by International law to perform its obligations.”10

On July 2 the African Union, following the recommendation of the CEAJ, called on Senegal to prosecute Hissène Habré “on behalf of Africa,”11 and President Wade declared that Senegal would do so.12

After four months of silence, on November 2, 2006, Senegalese government spokesman El Hadji Amadou Sall said that Senegal would revise its laws to permit Habré’s trial, and would establish a governmental commission under the minister of justice to oversee the legal changes, make contact with Chad, create a witness protection program, and raise money to carry out the investigation and trial.13 That commission began to meet in December. At this writing, however, the relevant law revisions have not been made (see also Section IV, below).

For its part, the African Union seems to have taken no particular steps to follow up its resolution. Shortly after the AU decision, the  Chairman of the  AU Commission Alpha Oumar Konaré said that Hissène Habré’s trial should take place “as soon as possible,” but no timetable was set forth.14



1 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture), adopted December 10, 1984, G.A. res. 39/46, annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984), entered into force June 26, 1987, ratified by Senegal on August 21, 1986.

2 Cour de Cassation, Crim, Arrêt nº 14 du 20 mars 2001, “Souleymane Guengueng et autres Contre Hissène Habré,” http://www.hrw.org/french/themes/Habré-cour_de_cass.html. The Cour de Cassation said, “Qu’aucun texte de procédure ne reconnaît une compétence universelle aux juridictions sénégalaises en vue de poursuivre et de juger, s’ils sont trouvés sur le territoire de la République, les présumés auteurs ou complices de faits [de torture] … lorsque ces faits ont été commis hors du Sénégal par des étrangers; que la présence au Sénégal d’Hissène Habré ne saurait à elle seule justifier les poursuites intentées contre lui.”

3 Souleymane Guengueng et Autres C/ Sénégal, Communication Presented before the Committee Against Torture (Article 22 of the Convention), for violation of Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention, http://www.hrw.org/french/themes/habre-cat.html.

4 Letter from Hamid Gaham, chief, Support Services Branch, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to Reed Brody, Human Rights Watch, April 27, 2001, http://www.hrw.org/french/themes/images/guengueng_small.jpg.

5 “L’Etat du Sénégal, sensible aux plaintes des victimes qui demandent justice, s’abstiendra de tout acte qui pourrait permettre à M. Hissène Habré de ne pas comparaître devant la justice. Il considère, en conséquence, qu’il appartient au sommet de l’Union africaine d’indiquer la juridiction compétente pour juger cette affaire.” Seehttp://hrw.org/french/docs/2005/11/27/chad12130.htm.

6 Declaration on the Hissène Habré Case and the African Union, January 24, 2006, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/24/chad12571.htm.

7 In an answer to a parliamentary question on January 26, 2006, the Belgian vice-prime minister and minister of justice, Laurette Onkelinx, stated that “in the case of a refusal to extradite, Belgium will request application of article 30 of the Convention against Torture of December 10, 1984. This provision governs disputes between State Parties to the Convention concerning its application or interpretation. We are in the negotiation phase provided for by this article. Belgium has questioned Senegal using diplomatic means on the decision made regarding the extradition request. The Convention provides in effect that the requested state must extradite the accused or judge him under national jurisdiction. In the case of the failure of the negotiations, arbitration will be requested by Belgium, as provided for by article 30 of the Convention. If the two States do not reach an agreement on the organization of this arbitration during the six months after the request, Belgium will submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice, again in accordance with the procedure envisioned by article 30 of the Convention.” (“En cas de refus d’extradition, la Belgique demandera l’application de l’article 30 de la Convention contre la torture du 10 décembre 1984. Cette disposition régit les différends entre les États parties à la Convention concernant son application ou son interprétation. Nous sommes dans la phase de négociation prévue par cet article. La Belgique a interpellé le Sénégal par voie diplomatique sur une décision prise relative à la demande d’extradition. La Convention prévoit en effet que l’État requis extrade la personne réclamée ou la fasse juger par une juridiction nationale. En cas d’échec de la négociation, un arbitrage sera demandé par la Belgique, comme prévu par l’article 30 de la Convention. Si les deux États n’arrivaient pas à un accord sur l’organisation de cet arbitrage dans les six mois de la demande, la Belgique soumettrait le différend à la Cour internationale de Justice, toujours selon la procédure prévue par l’article 30 de la Convention.”)

8 Committee Against Torture, Communication No. 181/2001: Senegal 19/05/2006 – CAT/C/36/D/181/2001, http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/aafdd8e81a424894c125718c004490f6?Opendocument (accessed December 19, 2006).

9 Ibid., para. 10. CAT also wished “to receive information from the State party [Senegal] within 90 days on the measures it has taken to give effect to its recommendations.” Ibid., para. 11.

10 Report Of The Committee Of Eminent African Jurists On The Case Of Hissene Habre, paras. 17, 18, and 28, http://www.hrw.org/justice/habre/CEJA_Repor0506.pdf.

11 Decision On The Hissene Habre Case And The African Union, Doc. Assembly/Au/3 (Vii), http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/chad13897.htm.

12 “We thought Senegal was the country best placed to try him and I think we must not flee from our responsibility,” said President Wade. BBC News, “Senegal Trial for Ex-Chad Leader,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5139350.stm.

13 Communiqué: Le Sénégal prépare activement le jugement de M. Hissène Habré, http://hrw.org/french/themes/communiqueHabre110206.pdf.

14 “Personne n'est au-dessus des lois, pas même les dirigeants” Le Monde, July 7, 2006: “Il faut que le procès ait lieu dans les meilleurs délais.”