Assembly/AU/ 14 (XI) Page 6 22. Similarly, the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid 1973 contains an undertaking by Parties in Article 4 to adopt legislative, judicial and administrative measures for the exercise of jurisdiction over persons accused of apartheid, irrespective of territoriality and nationality. xxxix 23. The Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons 1973 provides for States to exercise territorial, nationality and flag jurisdictions. xl Article 7 of the Convention further provides that, “The State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall, if it does not extradite him, submit, without exception whatsoever and without undue delay, the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the laws of that State.” 24. There is nothing in the text of the Convention, which expresses any form of universal jurisdiction. Unlike the Hague and Montreal Conventions, and indeed other international multilateral agreements which have adopted the standard formulation in Article 7 of the Hague and Montreal Conventions, the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons does not obligate States to extradite alleged offenders, it only obligates States to exercise jurisdiction, if the alleged offender is not extradited. This is clear from a comparative reading of the Conventions. 25. The International Convention against the Taking of Hostages 1979,xli provides in Article 5 that States parties are to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of territoriality, habitual residence (for Stateless persons), nationality of offender and victim, and where the unlawful act was done to compel the State to do or to abstain from doing an act. Like Article 7 of the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, Article 8 of the Convention against taking of Hostages again obligates States to exercise jurisdiction, if the alleged offender is not extradited. 26. In United States v. Yunis, xlii the courts of the United States exercised jurisdiction over a Lebanese national and resident who was charged for the hijacking of a Jordanian civil aircraft in the Middle East in 1985 involving some nationals of the United States. The case has been celebrated as “a resounding acceptance of universal and passive personality principles as sufficient bases under international law for a State to assert jurisdiction over an extra-territorial crime…” xliii However, the Hostages Convention provided expressly for the exercise of jurisdiction on grounds of nationality of victim. 27. The Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material 1980 does not include universal jurisdiction, rather it provides for the exercise of jurisdiction under the Convention on grounds of territoriality or aboard a ship or aircraft registered in the State (flag) and nationality of the offender. xliv It mandates parties to exercise jurisdiction where the offender is within its territory, and it does not extradite the alleged offender. xlv 28. In addition to providing for jurisdiction, in Article 5, on nationality and territorial grounds, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment 1984 expressly contains the expansive obligation of States to either prosecute or extradite (aut dedere, aut judicare) alleged offenders. Article 7 of the Convention provides that if a State party in whose territory a person accused of torture is found shall extradite him or submit the matter to its competent authorities for prosecution. xlvi The decision of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom in the case of Pinochet was focused on the obligations of Chile, Spain