Assembly/AU/ 14 (XI) Page 18 honour or dignity of the President merely because this invitation was sent to him when he was in France to attend an international conference. The Court observes again that if it had been proven by Djibouti that this confidential information had been passed from the offices of the French judiciary to the media, such an act could, in the context of the attendance of the Head of State of Djibouti at an international conference in France, have constituted not only a violation of French law, but also a violation by France of its international obligations. However, the Court must again recognize, as it has already done regarding the summons of 17 May 2005 (see paragraph 175 of the judgment), that it has not been provided with probative evidence which would establish that the French judicial authorities were the source behind the dissemination of the confidential information at issue here.’ cxvi 83. The exercise of universal jurisdiction over State officials, including Heads of State and other senior officials, can result in harassment. This would, no doubt, adversely impact on the effective performance of the official functions of such persons. This harassment and interference could have international repercussions by embarrassing or limiting a State in its conduct of foreign relations which could in turn cause tensions between States or limit their participation in international affairs. The exercise of universal jurisdiction, as an analysis of the cases from Spain and Belgium have demonstrated, is not mandatory and this could lead to States which claim universal jurisdiction under their domestic laws employing it discriminately against nationals of certain States, especially less developed States. The instances of Spanish and Belgian jurisdiction over nationals of Guatemala, Argentina, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Chad point to this. 84. There is the added danger of forum-shopping where victims of international crimes as well as activists may seek to bring complaints against certain State officials hoping that a State will be able to institute criminal proceedings against these officials. cxvii To safeguard abuse by way of harassment of State officials and forum-shopping, it is important for African States to take specific measures of immunity indicated by the International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v France): ‘The State which seeks to claim immunity for one of its 85. State organs is expected to notify the authorities of the other State concerned. This would allow the court of the forum State to ensure that it does not fail to respect any entitlement to immunity and might thereby engage the responsibility of that State. Further, the State notifying a foreign court that judicial process should not proceed, for reasons of immunity, against its State organs, is assuming responsibility for any internationally wrongful act in issue committed by such organs.’ cxviii 86. However, it is important to note that the likelihood of abuse of a concept in international law does not nullify the existence of the concept or its applicability in the right circumstances. The potential for abuse is highlighted with a view towards a better understanding and regulation of the concept. PART IV: RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL