Territories held that the ICCPR extends to ‘acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside of its own territory’.164 It is under these principles that the ICCPR and all other human rights treaties ratified by the United States were considered to extend to the actions of the United States in relation to persons detained at Guantanamo Bay.165 The Human Rights Committee has upheld the extraterritorial application of the ICCPR in this context and others including targeted killings by ‘drones’ as part of counter-terrorism operations.166 21. In Al-Skeini and others v UK,167 the European Court held that extraterritorial jurisdiction was exceptional, but this could be recognised either on a personal or spatial notion of jurisdiction. 22. As to personal jurisdiction, this will arise if the State ‘when, through the consent, invitation or acquiescence of the government of that territory, it exercises all or some of the public powers normally to be exercised by that government’.168 Further: ‘whenever the State through its agents exercises control and authority over an individual, and thus jurisdiction, the State is under an obligation under Article 1 to secure to that individual the rights and freedoms under Section1 of the Convention that are relevant to the situation of that individual’.169 23. In addition, the European Court also held that ‘where the territory of one Convention State is occupied by the armed forces of another, the occupying State should in principle be held accountable under the Convention for breaches of human rights within the occupied territory. …However, the importance of establishing the occupying State’s jurisdiction in such cases does not imply, a contrario, that jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention can never exist outside the territory covered by the Council of Europe Member States’.170 Given, therefore in this case that the UK had exercised some of the ‘public powers normally to be exercised by a sovereign government’, it therefore exercised authority and control over the individuals killed.171 24. Where individuals are in the physical control of the State agent, they will be presumed to be within the State’s jurisdiction.172 164 ICJ, Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, para 109; see also ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda), 19 December 2005, paras 178-180, and 216-217. 165 ‘Situation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay’, E/CN.4/2006/120. See similar approach by the InterAmerican Commission, Victor Saldano v Argentina, Report no.38/99, 11 March 1999, para 17. 166 Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of the United States of America, CCPR/C/USA/CO/4, 23 April 2014. 167 European Court, 7 July 2011. 168 Ibid, para 135. 169 Ibid, para 136. 170 Ibid, para 142. 171 Ibid, para 149. 172 Human Rights Committee, Communication 56/1979, Lilian Celiberti de Casariego v Uruguay, 29 July 1981. 47