Assembly/AU/11 (XIII) Annex II Page 4   prosecute crimes committed outside its territory in a range of circumstances. It may do so under the nationality (or active personality) principle when the perpetrator of the crime is a national of that state. 2. Alternatively, under the passive personality principle, it may exercise criminal jurisdiction over extraterritorial acts by non-nationals when the victim of the crime is a national of that state, at least in respect of serious offences against the person. 3. Additionally, under what is known as the protective principle, a state may exercise criminal jurisdiction over extraterritorial acts by non-nationals which threaten some vital interest of that state, e.g. counterfeiting the national currency. Under customary international law, these bases of jurisdiction are, like universal jurisdiction, merely permissive: a state is not obliged to assert a jurisdiction granted to it by custom. But various treaties oblige states parties to empower their courts to exercise jurisdiction over treaty based crimes. (iii) No mandatory hierarchy of internationally permissible jurisdictions Positive international law recognises no hierarchy among the various bases of jurisdiction that it permits. In other words, a state which enjoys universal jurisdiction over, for example, crimes against humanity is under no positive legal obligation to accord priority in respect of prosecution to the state within the territory of which the criminal acts occurred or to the state of nationality of the offender or victims. (b) Approaches to Universal Jurisdiction in the National Law and Practice of Member States of the AU and EU In the course of discussion, it became obvious to the experts that the two areas under discussion i.e. Africa and Europe have very distinct approaches to the application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction as exhibited below: (i) African Union: Outline of National Law and Practice of Member States regarding Universal Jurisdiction 1. Among the AU Members there are States that provide for the exercise of universal jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. One State establishes universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and genocide only while there are others who grant universal jurisdiction over grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions 1949. As for the UN Convention against Torture 1984 more than half of the Member States of the AU are states parties to this, however a number of them need to domesticate the Convention. 2. In at least two AU Member States, immunities as may otherwise serve to bar the prosecution of foreign state officials have been abrogated in respect of charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In addition, in accordance with Article 12 of the Protocol for the Prevention Version 31 March 09(FINAL)