of, or is affected by those acting on behalf of, the State in question. Thus, in a decision in which it examined the circumstances in which the obligations under the European Convention apply extraterritorially, the European Court of Human Rights held that while, “from the standpoint of public international law, the jurisdictional competence of a state is primarily territorial”, 78 it may extend extraterritorially if a State, “through the effective control of the relevant territory and its inhabitants abroad as a consequence of military occupation or through the consent, invitation or acquiescence of the government of that territory, exercises all or some of the public powers normally to be exercised by that government.” 79 A situation in which a person is brought under the “effective control” of the authorities of a State if they are exercising their authority outside the State’s territory may also give rise to the extraterritorial application of Convention obligations. 80 40. Also relevant in the present context is the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Issa and Ors v. Turkey, which confirmed that “a State may also be held accountable for violations of the Convention rights and freedoms of persons who are in the territory of another State but who are found to be under the former State’s authority and control through its agents operating – whether lawfully or unlawfully – in the latter State […]. Accountability in such situations stems from the fact that Article 1 of the Convention cannot be interpreted so as to allow a State party to perpetrate violations of the Convention on the territory of another State, which it could not perpetrate on its own territory […].”81 41. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held in its decision in Coard et al. v. the United States that “while the extraterritorial application of the American Declaration has not been placed at issue by the parties, the Commission finds it pertinent to note that, under certain circumstances, the exercise of its jurisdiction over acts with an extraterritorial locus will not only be consistent with, but required by the norms which pertain.” 82 78 79 80 81 82 Bankovic et al. v. Belgium and 16 other contracting States (Admissibility), Application No. 52207/99, 12 December 2001, para. 59. Id., para. 71. See also Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), Application No. 15318/89, Judgement of 23 February 1995, Series A, No. 310, para. 62 (“In this respect the Court recalls that, although Article 1 (art. 1) sets limits on the reach of the Convention, the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ under this provision is not restricted to the national territory of the High Contracting Parties. […] [t]he responsibility of Contracting Parties can be involved because of acts of their authorities, whether performed within or outside national boundaries, which produce effects outside their own territory.”). Öcalan v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), Application No. 46221/99, Judgement of 12 March 2003, para. 93 (the former PKK leader had been arrested by Kenyan authorities and handed over to Turkish officials operating in Kenya). See also Ilascu and Others v. Russia and Moldova, Application No. 48787/99, Judgement of 8 July 2004, paras. 382-394 (finding that the complainants came within the “jurisdiction” of the Russian Federation, and that the responsibility of the Russian Federation for acts which occurred on the territory of Moldova was engaged by the conduct of its own soldiers there, as well as that of the Transdniestran authorities, on the basis of the support provided by Russia to the latter) on the basis of the actions of its own soldiers as well as their support to the Transdniestran authorities). Issa and Ors v. Turkey, Application No. 3821/96, Judgement of 16 November 2004, para. 71, with references, inter alia, to decisions of the Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. Coard et al. v. the United States, Case No. 10.951, Report No. 109/99, 29 September 1999, para. 37. 18