- 15 - CDL-AD(2006)009 b. Scope of the duty of Council of Europe member States to secure human rights 62. Under Article 1 of the ECHR, “The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention”30. According to the European Court of Human Rights, the notion of “jurisdiction” is primarily territorial. It does, however, exceptionally extend to certain other cases, such as acts of public authority performed abroad by diplomatic or consular representatives of the State, or by an occupying force; acts performed on board vessels flying the State flag or on aircraft or spacecraft registered there. 63. There is a presumption that jurisdiction is exercised by the State throughout its territory. States may also be held accountable for human rights violations occurring outside their territory in certain situations31. 64. Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that a State Party undertakes to “respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant.” 65. The term “jurisdiction” under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is comparable to the same term under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is also not limited to territorial jurisdiction. The Human Rights Committee has held, for example, that communications by persons who were kidnapped by agents in a neighbouring States are admissible, reasoning that States Parties are responsible for the actions of their agents on foreign territory32. The Human Rights Committee also clarified in its General Comment no. 31 that “a State Party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of the State Party.”33 66. The duty of State parties under Article 1 ECHR to “secure” to everyone within their jurisdiction “the rights and freedoms … of this Convention” is not limited to the duty of state organs not to violate these rights themselves. This duty also includes positive obligations to protect individuals against infringements of their rights by third parties, be they private individuals or organs of third States operating within the jurisdiction of the State party concerned (see para. 146 below). The European Court of Human Rights has, in particular, 30 Article 2 of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment similarly States that “Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.” See para. 146. 31 See European Court of Human Rights, Issa v. Turkey judgment of 6 November 2004, §§ 71-74; International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, 9 July 2004, § 109. See also the views adopted by the Human Rights Committee on 29 July 1981 in the cases of Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay and Celiberti de Casariego v. Uruguay, nos. 52/1979 and 56/1979, at §§ 12.3 and 10.3 respectively. See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Coard v. US, Case 10.951, Report No. 109/99, 29 September 1999, § 37, and Alejandre Cuba, Case 11.589, Report No. 86/99 29 September 1999, § 23. 32 Lopez Burgos, No 52/ 1979, § 12.3; Celiberti, No 56/1979, § 103.3; Persons who have fled abroad are not prevented by Art 2 (1) from submitting an individual communication, No 25/1978, § 7.2; No. 74/1980, § 4.1; No. 110/1981, § 6; States parties are responsible for violations of the Covenant by foreign diplomatic representatives, No 31/1978; No 57/1979; Nr 77/1980, No 106/1981; No 108/1981; No. 125/1982 33 HRC General Comment 31, § 10.