Assembly/AU/11 (XIII) Annex II Page 5   and the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity and All Forms of Discrimination to the Pact on Security, Stability and Development in the Great Lakes Region, the provisions of the chapter on genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity apply irrespective of the official status of the suspect. 3. It should be noted that there are legal limitations to the exercise of universal jurisdiction in the legislative practice of AU Member States, e.g., the requirement that the suspect be in the territory of the prosecuting state at the time of the initiation of criminal proceedings and respect for the immunities from criminal jurisdiction enjoyed by state officials under international law. 4. The practical problems likely to be faced by AU Member States in exercising universal jurisdiction will probably be the same as those encountered by EU Member States, but, given the relative capacity of AU Member States, it stands to reason that the impediment will be greater. No African state is known to have exercised universal jurisdiction effectively. In one state, an indictment was brought against a former African head of state, but proceedings were not pursued. In a decision of July 2006, the AU Assembly mandated the African state in question to prosecute and ensure that the suspect be tried, on behalf of Africa, by a competent court of that state, with guarantees for fair trial. 5. It should also be noted that, in its recent decision on the principle of universal jurisdiction, the AU Assembly requested ‘the African Union Commission, in consultation with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to examine the implications of the Court being empowered to try international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and report thereon to the Assembly in 2010.’ (ii) European Union: Outline of National Law and Practice of Member States regarding Universal Jurisdiction 1. Certain EU Member States provide for the exercise of universal jurisdiction in criminal matters only where such exercise is envisaged or rendered mandatory by international treaties to which the relevant state is party. An example of such a state is Ireland. Other EU Member States grant universal jurisdiction over international crimes on the basis of customary international law as well. 2. The exercise of universal jurisdiction is often subject to legal limitations, e.g., the presence of the suspect on the territory of the prosecuting State may be required, either before the initiation of a criminal investigation or before the commencement of trial proceedings, nationality requirements, grant of universal jurisdiction over crimes committed during a specified conflict. Version 31 March 09(FINAL)