CDL-AD(2006)009 - 10 - 36. An additional set of standards aimed specifically at safeguarding human rights and fundamental freedoms has been produced after 2001, namely the Guidelines on Human Rights and the Fight Against Terrorism (2002), a Policy Recommendation on Combating Racism While Fighting Terrorism (2004), the additional Guidelines on the Protection of Victims of Terrorist Acts (2005) and a Declaration on Freedom of expression and information in the media in the context of the fight against terrorism (2005). d. Some observations on State responsibility 37. When a State commits, through its agents acting in their official capacity, an internationally wrongful act, it incurs responsibility and “is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act” at the request of the injured State (see Article 31 para. 1 of the International Law Commission (ILC)’s Articles on State Responsibility). 38. With respect to the imputability of an international wrong, the question arises of whether and to what extent a State incurs responsibility when its agents have ultra vires consented expressly or impliedly by rendering assistance, to acts of a foreign State infringing its territorial sovereignty (see above, paras. 27 and 29). 39. Ultra vires acts usually bind the State for the purposes of State responsibility (Article 7, ILC Articles on State Responsibility). 40. Consent to carry out activities which otherwise would be internationally wrongful renders them lawful, unless these activities are contrary to jus cogens (see para. 42 below). However, consent to an interference with sovereignty must be validly given (Article 20, ILC Articles on State Responsibility). In this context, Article 46 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties is pertinent. It provides that: 1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance. 2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith. 41. In the opinion of the Commission, if a public authority of a State would give a permission to the representative of another State to arrest and/or transfer a person against his will from the territory of that State and it is clear that this would be outside of the ordinary (judicial, administrative) procedures for such arrest/transfer, such permission would be a manifest violation of a rule of internal law of fundamental importance in any State under the rule of law. Such permission could therefore not be invoked by the other State as valid consent. 42. Even where such permission does not result in the conclusion of or accession to a treaty, the Law of Treaties insofar reflects the general principle of good faith.17 This principle is “one of 17 See Müller/Kolb, Article 2(2), MN. 16, in: Simma (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations – A Commentary, Oxford, 2nd ed. 2002).