Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook the jurisdiction of the respondent State at the time of the alleged violation of the Convention.384 It follows that the issue of jurisdiction is a “threshold” requirement in the Convention; the question of State responsibility or imputability will arise only after the Court is satisfied that the matters complained of are within the jurisdiction of the respondent State.385 The jurisdictional competence of a State is primarily territorial.386 However, the term “jurisdiction” should not be interpreted as strictly coextensive with the Contracting Parties’ “territory”. Rather, it is well established in the jurisprudence of the Convention organs that Contracting Parties may be held accountable for certain types of extraterritorial conduct.387 Activities by authorities of a Contracting State outside its territory could fall within the Court’s jurisdiction if the event in question was under the effective control of the Contracting Praty. An illustrative case in this regard is the case of Cyprus v. Turkey.388 The case relates to the military operations in northern Cyprus by Turkey. Cyprus maintained that the Turkish occupation violated inter alia Article 3 of the Convention. Turkey disputed its responsibility and argued that the alleged acts and omissions were imputable exclusively to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, an independent State established by the Turkish-Cypriot community.389 The Court rejected this view and reasoned that in conformity with the relevant principles of international law […] the responsibility of a Contracting Party could also arise when as a consequence of military action – whether lawful or unlawful – it exercises effective control of an area outside its 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 its armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration.390 The Court further recalled that a finding that Turkey was not responsible would result in a vacuum of the human rights protection in the territory because it would deprive inhabitants of that territory of the benefit of the Convention rights they would otherwise have enjoyed.391 384 See generally Angelika Nussberger, “The Concept of ‘Jurisdiction’ in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”, in Current Legal Problems, vol. 65, 2012, pp. 241–268. 385 Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, 8 July 2004, § 311. 386 Soering v. the United Kingdom, no. 14038/88. 7 July 1989, § 86. 387 See e.g. analysis by Hugh King, “The Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations of States”, in Human Rights Law Review, vol. 9, 2009, pp. 521–556; Morten Peschardt Pedersen, “Territorial Jurisdiction in Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights”, in Nordic Journal of International Law, vol. 73, 2004, pp. 279–305. 388 Cyprus v. Turkey, no. 25781/94, 10 May 2001. 389 Ibid., para. 69. 390 Ibid., para. 76. 391 Ibid., para. 78. 116