Assembly/AU/ 14 (XI) Page 4 in the wake of World War II to crimes against humanity as evident in the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Israel in 1961. xxv Eichmann, an official in the German Reich, who was implicated in the Holocaust was kidnapped from Argentina and brought to trial in Israel. While States like Argentina objected to the violation of its territorial sovereignty and the manner of securing the presence of Eichmann in Israel, there were no objections to the grounds on which Israel asserted jurisdiction, which included universal jurisdiction. Further to this, the United States, in the case of Demjanyuk, accepted that a person implicated in the Holocaust could be extradited to Israel which could exercise jurisdiction over persons accused of perpetrating the Holocaust. xxvi 15. Universal jurisdiction has also been argued to have extended to certain crimes where multilateral treaties codifying these crimes such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court stipulate that States within whose territory persons guilty of such crimes are found are under a duty to prosecute or extradite (aut dedere, aut judicare/ punire) such persons. xxvii International instruments on genocide, war crimes, hijacking, torture and terrorism contain provisions obligating States to exercise jurisdiction over certain acts or extradite accused persons to other States for trial. 16. With regard to the so-called treaty-based universal jurisdiction (aut dedere, aut judicare), resort is to be had to the language of the specific treaties. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948 does not contain an express provision mandating State parties to assume jurisdiction over crimes of genocide by prosecuting accused persons or to extradite such persons. The Genocide Convention does not impose an obligation to prosecute or extradite, rather it expressly provides that trials are to be by “a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.” xxviii The Convention also provides in Article VII that, “Genocide …shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.” 17. The logical interpretation of these provisions can only, therefore, either be that proceedings for genocide may be brought by States ,which are obligated to exercise jurisdiction where there is a territorial jurisdictional link, or that proceedings may be brought before a competent international criminal court. Where genocide has been committed and extradition is sought, parties to the Convention cannot qualify the genocide as a political offence for which there can be no extradition but rather to grant the extradition in accordance with its own national laws; extradition being dependent on the existence of a treaty or agreement in the absence of which there is no obligation to extradite. xxix However, these provisions of the Genocide Convention have been progressively interpreted as including a “potential” for universal jurisdiction”. xxx 18. International instruments regarding war crimes and torture are more explicit in their provisions regarding the issue of ‘treaty-based universal jurisdiction’. Articles 49, 50, 129 and