PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court More recently, in the case of Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom392 the Court held that two Iraqi nationals detained in British-controlled military prisons in Iraq fell within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, since the United Kingdom exercised total and exclusive control over the prisons and the individuals detained in them. Additionally, in the case of Medvedyev and Others v. France393 the Court held that the applicants, who were apprehended on board a vessel in international waters, were within French jurisdiction by virtue of the exercise by French agents of full and exclusive control over a ship and its crew from the time of its interception. While “effective control” over a territory has always been a crucial element for jurisdiction, the Court lifted the barrier of territorially defined jurisdiction in favour of a more flexible and modern “effective control”-standard in the case of Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom.394 Addressing the complaints of relatives of Iraqi citizens killed in the course of military operations by British forces in southern Iraq: [F]ollowing the removal from power of the Ba’ath regime and until the accession of the Interim Government, the United Kingdom (together with the United States) assumed in Iraq the exercise of some of the public powers normally to be exercised by a sovereign government. In particular, the United Kingdom assumed authority and responsibility for the maintenance of security in South East Iraq. In these exceptional circumstances, the Court considers that the United Kingdom, through its soldiers engaged in security operations in Basrah during the period in question, exercised authority and control over individuals killed in the course of such security operations, so as to establish a jurisdictional link between the deceased and the United Kingdom for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention.395 This standard was developed and further refined in the case of Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia, which concerned the Russian-controlled Transdniestria-region of Moldova: One exception to the principle that jurisdiction under Article 1 is limited to a State’s own territory occurs when, as a consequence of lawful or unlawful military action, a Contracting State exercises effective control of an area outside that national territory. The obligation to secure, in such an area, the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention, derives from the fact of such control, whether it be exercised directly, through the Contracting State’s own armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration. Where the fact of such domination over the territory is established, it is not necessary to determine whether the Contracting State exercises detailed control over the policies and actions of the subordinate local administration. The fact 392 Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61498/08, 30 June 2009, §§ 86–89. 393 Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, 29 March 2010, § 67. 394 Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, 7 July 2011. See also Barbara Miltner, “Revisiting Extraterritoriality after Al-Skeini: The ECHR and its Lessons”, in Michigan Journal of International Law, vol. 33, 2012, p. 693; Marko Milanovic, “Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda in Strasbourg”, in European Journal of International Law, vol. 23, 2012, pp. 121–139; Miša Zgonec-Rožej, “Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom”, in American Journal of International Law, vol. 106, 2012, pp. 131–137. 395 Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, 7 July 2011, § 149. 117