CAT/C/53/D/511/2012 6, paragraph 1; 10; and 15 relate to circumstances where the State party has the ability to enforce the obligation in question, which would not be the case if article 14 applied to acts committed extraterritorially; (i) although articles 6, paragraph 1; 10; and 15 may relate to acts that may occur outside the State party’s territory despite the absence of express wording to this effect, their extraterritorial application is clear from a plain and ordinary reading of those articles,20 which is not the case for article 14; (j) if the drafters of the Convention had intended article 14, paragraph 1, to impose an obligation to provide for universal civil jurisdiction, they would not have included the “savings clause” contained in article 14, paragraph 2, which provides that nothing in article 14 shall affect any right of the victim or other persons to compensation which may exist under national law; 21 (k) State practice supports the State party’s position, 22 as demonstrated by views expressed by the United States23 and Canada,24 and in foreign jurisprudence; (l) article 14 should be interpreted in accordance with the rule of customary international law under which States enjoy immunity from civil proceedings in the courts of foreign jurisdictions, subject to certain inapplicable exceptions;25 (m) although the author draws inferences from the fact that the words “committed in any territory under its jurisdiction” were deleted from the text of article 14 during drafting, these words may have been deleted by mistake,26 and the travaux préparatoires shed little light on the question of whether article 14 allows for extraterritorial application;27 (n) the Committee’s views expressed on the extraterritorial application of article 14 do not reflect the proper interpretation of this article; 28 (o) although the author cites publicists who agree with her interpretation of article 14, others have indicated a different view;29 and (p) if article 14 does apply extraterritorially as alleged by 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 10 Concerning article 6, paragraph 1, the State party refers to International Court of Justice, Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 422, paras. 79–88. With respect to article 10, the State party cites the first instance decision of Bouzari et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 124 I.L.R. 427 (Can. Ont. Sup. Ct. J. 2002) (Bouzari, First Instance), para. 49. The State party cites Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth McArthur, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008), p. 494 (referring to the Alien Tort Claims Act under United States law and stating that the inclusion of the aforementioned clause in article 14, paragraph 2, “seems to indicate that the drafters of the Convention did not wish to preclude States from adopting a universal approach to redress such as that adopted by the United States”). The State party cites Anthony Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press, second edition, 2007), p. 241; US-France Air Services Arbitration, 1963 (54 ILR 303), para. 69. The State party cites the declaration made by the United States with respect to article 14: “That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State party.” The State party cites CAT/C/SR.646/Add.1, paras. 41–45 (in which Canada indicated its view that article 14 only imposed an obligation with respects to acts of torture within a State party’s territory). The State party cites, inter alia, the Australian Foreign States Immunities Act (1985); European Court of Human Rights, Al Adsani v. United Kingdom, application No. 35763/97, judgment of 21 November 2001, para. 61. The State party cites the statement of David P. Stewart, Assistant Legal Adviser for Human Rights and Refugee Affairs, United States Department of State, Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 101st Congress, 2nd session (1990), p. 26. The State party cites, inter alia, Nowak and McArthur, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Commentary, p. 492. The State party refers, inter alia, to general comment No. 3, para. 22; CAT/C/CR/34/CAN, paras. 4 (g) and 5 (f). The State party cites Nowak and McArthur, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Commentary, p. 502.