- 25 - CDL-AD(2006)009 might identify66. In addition, the flag State would face international responsibility for the breach of Article 4 of the Chicago Convention and of customary international law. 104. The relations between air law and human rights law will be analysed below (see paras 144-152). E. Military bases 105. The lawfulness of the presence of the armed forces of one State on the territory of another State in peacetime is contingent on the consent of the host State. The initial decision to admit the force may take the form of a bilateral or multilateral treaty, often defence agreements. There follows a decision by the receiving State granting the use of facilities on its soil, which is normally done through a further agreement. 106. A State does not abandon its sovereignty when it consents to the presence of foreign armed forces on its territory. It guarantees the enjoyment of the privilege of user of its territory accorded to the sending State; it retains however the right to regulate this privilege within the framework of the applicable treaties and agreements. It follows that the sending State acquires various powers pertaining to the operation of its defence forces on a territory that remains subject to the sovereignty of the host State. The sending State may lawfully claim in or over the territory of the receiving State, only those rights and powers that are connected directly with the establishment and operation of, and access to, the sites at which the foreign forces and installations are located. The principle of sovereignty dictates that any further rights and powers can derive only from an express grant by the receiving States. In particular, the extent of the right for the receiving State to search a foreign military base on its territory depends on the terms of the defence agreement or of the “Status-of-forces agreement” (SOFA)67. 107. SOFAs between the host State and a State stationing military forces in the host State define the legal status of the sending State’s personnel and property in the territory of the host State. They are usually an integral part of the overall military bases agreements that allow the sending State’s military forces to operate within the host State68. 66 See ICAO Secretariat Study on “Civil/State Aircraft” LC/29-WP/2-1; Council Working paper CWP/10588 Misuse of Civil Aviation (Request from Cuba). 67 For example, the agreement of 26 July 1962 between Italy and the Supreme Commander of the NATO on the specific conditions of settling and operation on the Italian territory of the present or future international military General Quarters provides at Article 4 that the Italian Government accepts that the moveable and immoveable property of the General Quarters is immune from search. 68 SOFAs are normally bilateral; there exists in addition a multilateral SOFA with NATO members, the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) of 19 June 1951 (Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of their Forces, http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b510619a.htm). Pursuant to Article VII of the NATO SOFA, when only the sending State’s law is violated, the sending State has the power to exercise sole criminal jurisdiction. When only the receiving State’s law is violated, the receiving State has the power to exercise sole criminal jurisdiction. When a crime violated the laws of both countries, there is concurrent criminal jurisdiction: the receiving State maintains primary jurisdiction except for offences committed solely against the property or security or member of the sending State force, or for offences arising out of any act or omission done by the sending State service member in the performance of official duty. In all other cases, the receiving State has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the receiving State may relinquish jurisdiction through waiver requests from the sending State.