CCPR/C/130/D/3042/2017 jurisdiction, where the risk of an extraterritorial violation is a necessary and foreseeable consequence judged on the knowledge the State party had at the time.7 7.6 The Committee further notes that according to article 98 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, each State is to require the master of a ship flying its flag to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, insofar as such action may reasonably be expected, and that coastal States are to promote the establishment, operation and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service regarding safety on and over the sea and, where circumstances so require, by way of mutual regional arrangements cooperate with neighbouring States for that purpose. In addition, it notes that specific arrangements concerning the provision and coordination of search and rescue services are found in the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979, and in the regulations adopted pursuant to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, including on coordination of search and rescue operations of ships from different States by the regional coordination centre, and the duty of States to cooperate in search and rescue activities upon receiving information on situations of distress at sea.8 7.7 In the present case, the Committee notes that it is undisputed between the parties that the shipwreck occurred outside the State party’s territory, and that none of the alleged violations occurred when the authors’ relatives were on board a vessel hoisting an Italian flag. The question before the Committee is therefore whether the alleged victims could be considered to have been within the power or effective control of the State party, even though the incident took place outside its territory. The Committee notes that, in the present case, initial contact was made between the vessel in distress and State party authorities in Rome on 11 October 2013, sometime between 11 a.m. and 12.26 p.m., and that the authors’ claim that in one of the distress calls, the persons on board the vessel had been reassured by the Italian authorities that they would be rescued. The Committee also notes that it is uncontested that only after 1 p.m. did Malta inform the Italian rescue centre that it had accepted to coordinate the rescue operation and that such acceptance was formally confirmed in writing at 2.35 p.m. Furthermore, even after Malta accepted responsibility, the Italian authorities remained involved in the rescue operation, owing to the close location of the ITS Libra to the vessel in distress. Between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m., consultations took place between the Italian Air Force and Navy as to whether to dispatch the ITS Libra to assist in the rescue operation, and such dispatch was requested by the Maltese authorities on more than one occasion. At 5.07 p.m., after having been informed that the vessel had capsized, the Italian rescue centre confirmed that the ITS Libra had been dispatched towards the vessel in distress. It arrived at the scene at 6 p.m. and assumed an on-site coordination role at 6.30 p.m. 7.8 The Committee considers that in the particular circumstances of the case, a special relationship of dependency had been established between the individuals on the vessel in distress and Italy. That relationship comprised factual elements – in particular, the initial contact made by the vessel in distress with the Italian rescue centre, the close proximity of the ITS Libra to the vessel in distress and the ongoing involvement of the Italian rescue centre in the rescue operation – and relevant legal obligations incurred by Italy under the international law of the sea, including a duty to respond in a reasonable manner to calls of distress pursuant to regulations of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, in particular chapter V, regulation 33, and a duty to appropriately cooperate with other States undertaking rescue operations pursuant to the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979, in particular its chapter 5.6. As a result, the Committee considers that the individuals on the vessel in distress were directly affected by the decisions taken by the Italian authorities in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable in the light of the relevant legal obligations of Italy, and that they were thus subject to the State party’s jurisdiction for the purposes of the Covenant, notwithstanding the fact that they were within the Maltese search and rescue region and thus concurrently subject to the jurisdiction of Malta. 9 The carrying out of criminal investigations in Italy regarding the conduct of various naval officers 7 8 9 8 Munaf v. Romania (CCPR/C/96/D/1539/2006), para. 14.2. International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979, chap. 5.6. A.S. et al. v. Malta (CCPR/C/128/D/3043/2017), para. 6.7.