47. International human rights law and international humanitarian law will apply simultaneously unless there is a conflict between them.261 48. Reprisal killings will be illegal: as the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions has noted, ‘one side’s unlawful use of civilian shields, for example, does not affect the other side’s obligation to ensure that airstrikes do not kill civilians in excess of the military advantage of killing the targeted fighters’.262 F. Territorial application of the procedural obligation imposed by the right to life 49. The State is under a duty to meet the obligations imposed by the right to life within its jurisdiction. The State’s jurisdiction is primarily territorial, but the acts of the State performed or producing effects outside its territory can amount to an exercise of jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances. These circumstances include, among others, where a State agent exercises control and authority over an individual, for example when taking them into custody, or where the State, outside its territory, exercises all or some of the public powers normally exercised by a sovereign government.263 In AlSkeini v UK, the UK was therefore under the procedural obligation to investigate the deaths of civilians killed by British soldiers in Iraq. 50. The right to life can be violated by a state even if the violation is carried out occurs ‘by authorized agents of the State on foreign territory, ‘whether with the acquiescence of the Government of [the foreign State] or in opposition to it’.264 G. Amnesty and Impunity 51. It has been consistently held by international and regional human rights bodies that amnesties for gross violations of human rights will violate international human rights law.265 Neither will impunity be permitted where violations have been committed by private actors.266 261 Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, E/CN.4/2005/7, para 50. See also A/HRC/11/2/Add.4. 262 Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial Executions, A/HRC/14/24, para 40. 263 Al-Skeini and others v UK, 7 July 2011. 264 Human Rights Committee, Communication 52/1979, Lopez v. Uruguay, 29 July 1981, paras. 12.112.3. See also ICJ, Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, paras. 108-111. 265 See e.g. Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 322/1988, H Rodríguez v. Uruguay 19 July 1994, para. 12.4 266 Inter-American Court, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, judgment of July 29, 1989, Series C, No. 4, pp. 155-156, para. 176; European Court, Case of Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, 28 March 2000, para. 91 60