CCPR/C/130/D/3042/2017 Annex III Individual opinion of Committee member David H. Moore (dissenting) 1. The admissibility determination in the present case presents two key questions. The first and primary one concerns the scope of States party Covenant obligations. Under article 2 (1) of the Covenant, a State party’s obligations extend to individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction. The Committee has interpreted this phrase in the disjunctive. 1 While strong arguments exist for a conjunctive interpretation, it is unnecessary to revisit those to resolve the present case. No one contends that the territory of Italy extends to the high seas. The question thus becomes whether those shipwrecked were within the State party’s jurisdiction. 2. That question raises a secondary issue: the propriety of relying on international instruments beyond the Covenant in its interpretation. Policy reasons, such as harmonization, support interpreting the Covenant consistently with other sources of international law. Yet the Committee’s jurisdiction only extends to interpreting a particular treaty to which States have consented. In my view, the principles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, whether as treaty or customary international law, should inform the Committee’s use of nonCovenant sources in Covenant interpretation. 3. According to article 31 (3) (c) of the Vienna Convention, any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties are to be taken into account. Many States parties to the Covenant, including Italy and Malta, are also parties to the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979, which provides for division of the high seas into search and rescue regions assigned to particular States. This arrangement, specifically focusing on the division of responsibility and control, suggests that the Covenant jurisdiction of Italy should extend, at most, to individuals within its region. 4. The Committee’s decision to find jurisdiction outside that region in this tragic case reflects noble intent, particularly given the State party’s questionable actions. Yet I fear the decision adds a layer of uncertainty, and even apprehension, regarding responsibility on the high seas that may hinder, rather than sharpen, the response to future emergencies. I would find the communication inadmissible. 1 14 See Human Right Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant.