# Example — auditing user-supplied documents

Two worked audits illustrating common EAC traps.

---

## Example A — Habré described as convicted on all counts

### The document

A draft article states:

> "The EAC convicted Habré on all charges, including the direct rape of women in his custody, and sentenced him to life imprisonment, which was upheld on appeal."

### The audit

A characteristic Trial vs Appeals Chamber confusion (Trap 2):

1. **The Trial Chamber (30 May 2016)** convicted Habré on all charges including the **direct commission of rape against Khadidja Hassan Zidane** (one specific named victim).
2. **The Appeals Chamber (27 April 2017)** **acquitted Habré of the direct commission of rape against Khadidja Hassan Zidane** — finding the direct-commission evidence insufficient against the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The Appeals Chamber **upheld** the overall conviction for **crimes against humanity (including sexual violence committed by others under Habré's responsibility), war crimes, and torture**, and **upheld the life sentence**.
4. Habré therefore remained convicted on appeal for sexual violence under **command/superior responsibility** for crimes committed by DDS agents — but **not** for direct personal commission of rape.

The statement "convicted on all charges, including direct rape" is **accurate for the Trial Chamber but inaccurate for the final disposition** after appeal.

**Suggested redraft:**

> "The EAC Trial Chamber convicted Habré on 30 May 2016 of crimes against humanity (rape, sexual slavery, murder, summary executions, enforced disappearance, torture, other inhumane acts), war crimes, and torture, sentencing him to life imprisonment. On 27 April 2017, the Appeals Chamber upheld the conviction and the life sentence but acquitted him of one specific direct rape count (Khadidja Hassan Zidane), while maintaining his command/superior responsibility for sexual violence committed by Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité agents."

---

## Example B — EAC characterised as a "Senegalese national court"

### The document

A footnote in a thesis reads:

> "Habré was tried by Senegalese national courts under universal jurisdiction in 2015-2016."

### The audit

A characteristic structural mischaracterisation (Trap 1):

1. **The EAC is NOT a Senegalese national court**. It is a **hybrid court created by the Accord between the African Union and the Republic of Senegal of 22 August 2012**, integrated as **special chambers within the Senegalese judicial system**.

2. The distinction matters:
   - **Senegalese national courts** would apply Senegalese criminal law in the ordinary way — including (per the ECOWAS Court's ruling of 18 November 2010) confronting the non-retroactivity problem of the 2007 Senegalese legislation
   - The **EAC** was specifically created with an **international character** (per the ECOWAS Court's requirement) — applying the Statut des CAE alongside Senegalese procedural law, with **AU-appointed judges** including a non-Senegalese African presiding judge (Gberdao Gustave Kam of Burkina Faso)

3. The **universal jurisdiction basis** is correct — but it is grounded in **Senegal's treaty obligations (Convention against Torture Art. 7) as confirmed by the ICJ in *Belgium v. Senegal* (2012)**, not in Senegalese national law alone.

**Suggested redraft:**

> "Habré was tried by the Chambres Africaines Extraordinaires (Extraordinary African Chambers), a hybrid court created by the Accord between the African Union and the Republic of Senegal of 22 August 2012 and integrated as special chambers within the Senegalese judicial system. The EAC's jurisdiction is grounded in Senegal's universal jurisdiction obligations under Article 7 of the Convention against Torture, as confirmed by the ICJ in *Questions concerning the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal)* (Judgment of 20 July 2012). The trial was held in Dakar between July 2015 and February 2016; the Trial Judgment of 30 May 2016 was confirmed in principal part by the Appeals Judgment of 27 April 2017."

---

## The common thread

The audit task in each case is **identification** — distinguishing the four core EAC documents (indictment, Trial Judgment, Reparations Decision, Appeals Judgment), distinguishing the EAC from ordinary Senegalese courts, and accurately characterising the universal jurisdiction basis. Step 0 (identify the document and the institutional context) catches the most common errors.