Assembly/AU/ 14 (XI) Page 7 and the United Kingdom under the Torture Convention rather than on whether the Convention provided for universal jurisdiction for acts of torture. xlvii The extradition request sought by Spain did not arise from any claims as to universal jurisdiction, rather it arose from the obligation assumed by Spain under the Convention against Torture. 29. The United States have asserted expansive civil jurisdiction in relation to torture under Alien Torts Claims Act. In Filartiga v. Pena Irala, xlviii jurisdiction was assumed at the instance of two citizens of Paraguay over wrongful death resulting from acts of torture carried out in Paraguay by a police official against a Paraguayan citizen. The court of first instance dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals held illegal the acts of torture ,which violated the prohibition on torture, a norm of customary international law. In that case, the Judge likened the torturer to “…the pirate and slave trader before him; hostis humanis generis, an enemy of all mankind”. xlix 30. International efforts at the enlargement of jurisdiction extends to terrorist acts. The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1998 provides in Article 6 for the exercise of jurisdiction on grounds of territoriality, flag, nationality (of offender as well as victim), habitual residence in the case of stateless persons, commission of terrorist acts against a State or government facilities abroad (including embassies), compelling a State to do or abstain from an act or onboard any aircraft operated by a State. l Article 6(4) further provides that parties to the Convention are to take measures to establish jurisdiction where an alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite the offender. The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 1999 and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism 2005 provide for the exercise of jurisdiction on the same grounds as the Convention of Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1998. li 31. It is doubtful whether the provisions in multilateral conventions as highlighted above which have been regarded as treaty-based forms of universal jurisdiction are in fact universal jurisdiction in stricto sensu. The basis for the exercise of the expanded jurisdiction (beyond the accepted territorial and nationality grounds) proceeds from the agreement of States which are party to the conventions and do not apply to non-party States. Judge Higgins comments that, “…none of them [the conventions], properly analysed, provides for universal jurisdiction. They provide for various bases of jurisdiction coupled with the aut dedire aut punire principle- that is, that a State party to the treaty undertakes to try an offender found on its territory, or to extradite him for trial.” lii 32. There is no evidence of established State practice in international law with regard to universal jurisdiction over international crimes as a whole. President Guillaume of the International Court of Justice in the Arrest Warrant case found support with Lord Slynn of Hadley in Pinochet II that there is no universality of jurisdiction with regard to international crimes and he further asserted that only piracy is subject, truly, to universal jurisdiction in international law. liii 33. From the study of customary international law and treaty law undertaken in this Report, it is evident that universal jurisdiction as a concept of international law exists in relation to acts of piracy, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture under the Torture Convention, and, potentially, genocide under the Genocide Convention. However, the practice of the matter would be dependent on the extent to which States are bound by the various sources of international law (customary or treaty law) providing for universal jurisdiction.