- 23 - CDL-AD(2006)009 the aims of this Convention; it may also give such aircraft any other instructions to put an end to such violations. For this purpose, the contracting States may resort to any appropriate means consistent with relevant rules of international law, including the relevant provisions of this Convention, specifically paragraph a) of this Article62. Each contracting State agrees to publish its regulations in force regarding the interception of civil aircraft. 98. The flag State of the violating aircraft is internationally responsible for the infraction; the consequences of such responsibility would impact on the overall relations of the States concerned and can range from the duty to apologise, a promise to penalise the individuals responsible, a promise not to repeat the infraction and so on, to more severe sanctions. 99. Pursuant to Article 54 of the Chicago Convention, any action which may be considered as an infraction, breach, violation or infringement of the Convention is potentially subject to action by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) under Article 54 (j) or (k). For example, a contracting State which by its action contravenes the principle in Article 1 that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory, can be considered committing an infraction of the Convention. A similar conclusion could be drawn in respect of a State which by its action disregards the scope of “territory” given in Article 2; or whose regulations for State aircraft do not show “due regard for the safety of navigation of civil aircraft” (Article 3 (d)); or which uses weapons against civil aircraft in flight contrary to Article 3 bis; or which uses civil aviation for any purpose inconsistent with the aims of the Chicago Convention (Article 4). Infractions may be brought before the Council by a Contracting State or a group of Contracting States. 100. As long as an airplane is in the air and not on the ground, persons on board are subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of both the national State of the airplane and the territorial State63. In this context, it should be noted that Article 4 of the Convention on Offences and Certain other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (the Tokyo Convention)64 , to which practically all Council of Europe member States are party, provides that: “A Contracting State which is not the State of registration may not interfere with an aircraft in flight in order to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over an offence committed on board except in the following cases: (a) the offence has effect on the territory of such State; 62 Para. a) of Article 3bis of the Chicago Convention provides that “ The contracting States recognize that every State must refrain from resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight and that, in case of interception, the lives of persons on board and the safety of aircraft must not be endangered. This provision shall not be interpreted as modifying in any way the rights and obligations of States set forth in the Charter of the United Nations. 63 For Germany see Schönke/Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch, 26th ed. 2001, Vor §§ 3-7, para. 30, and § 153 c Strafprozessordnung (Law on Criminal Procedure), according to which the Public Prosecutor may abstain from prosecuting a crime which has been committed by a foreigner in a foreign aircraft; this provision presupposes that full jurisdiction over foreign aircraft in flight exists and only gives the Prosecutor a discretionary power not to exercise this jurisdiction, see Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung, 48th ed. 2005. See also, e.g. Males (French Cour de Cassation, 29 June 1972, 27 June 1973, 73 ILR 698), Public Prosecutor v. Janos V. Austrian Supreme Court 17 May 1972, 71 ILR 229, Air India v. Wiggens, UK House of Lords, 3 July 1980, 77 ILR 276), US v. Georgescu, 723 F. Supp. 912 (1989). 64 Tokyo, 14 September 1963, UNTS 704.