CCPR/C/120/D/2285/2013 5.4 On the issue of jurisdiction, the authors reiterate that the State party had effective control of the two corporate entities, and therefore they fell within the jurisdiction of the State party for the purpose of the Optional Protocol and the Covenant. Furthermore, the question of jurisdiction is related to the concept of responsibility. Given the universal nature of human rights, if a State party can prevent or remedy a human rights violation, it has the responsibility to do so. In its statement on the implication of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in the context of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises has indicated that where transnational corporations are involved in conflict-affected areas, their home States have crucial roles to play in assisting both those corporations and host States to ensure that businesses are not involved with human rights abuse, and that home States as well as host States should review their policies, legislation, regulations and enforcement measures to ensure that they effectively serve to prevent and address the heightened risk of business involvement in abuses in conflict situations. 11 The Working Group also held that while according to guiding principle 2 there is no general obligation to regulate the extraterritorial activities of a State’s natural or legal persons, specific obligations exist in relation to particular issues. 12 As for the Maastricht Principles, their adoption was not intended to be a new source of law but rather a restatement of the current state of international law regarding extraterritorial obligations. The commentary to the Principles points out that principle 25 (c) makes it clear that, based on the active personality principle, a State may regulate an enterprise which is registered or domiciled on the territory. Finally, the authors argue that the issue under the draft articles on responsibility of States is whether the violation can be attributed to a State party, not whether a State’s actions are attributable to another State. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The authors claim to be victims of violations of their rights under articles 2, 7, 12, 17 and 27 as a result of the eviction from their land and the construction on it of an Israeli settlement. They claim that the State party is responsible for those violations to the extent that it violated its extraterritorial obligation to guarantee the authors’ rights under the foregoing provisions by: (a) not providing them with effective remedies by failing to hold the two building corporations accountable for the violations; and (b) not adequately regulating the two corporations to ensure that their activities do not violate the provisions. The State party has challenged the admissibility of the authors’ claims on the grounds that the authors do not have standing before the Committee, that the articles invoked do not have extraterritorial effect and that the allegations are manifestly unfounded. 6.3 The State party argues that two of the authors (the estate of the late Ahmed Issa Abdallah Yassin and the Bil’in Village Council, represented by its Vice-Chair) are legal entities and, therefore, cannot be considered as victims under the Covenant and the Optional Protocol. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which, under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, only individuals have the right to submit a communication. As the estate and the Village Council are not individuals, the Committee considers that they do not meet the criterion of ratione personae enabling them to submit the communication. Accordingly, the communication is declared inadmissible with respect to them, under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, because of lack of personal standing. 13 6.4 The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the communication is incompatible with the communications procedure as the authors do not fall under the State party’s jurisdiction. The Committee recalls that under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, it is allowed to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the 11 12 13 GE.17-21900 See www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/OPTStatement6June2014.pdf. Ibid., footnote 26. See communications No. 163/1984, C et al. v. Italy, decision adopted on 10 April 1984, para. 5; and No. 104/1981, J.R.T. and the W.G. Party v. Canada, decision adopted on 6 April 1983, para. 8. 11