CCPR/C/120/D/2285/2013 jurisdiction of States parties. It also recalls that in paragraph 10 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, it stated that States parties are required by article 2, paragraph 1, to respect and to ensure the Covenant rights to all persons who may be within their territory and to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. This means that a State party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State party, even if not situated within the territory of the State party. As indicated in general comment 15 [on the position of aliens under the Covenant] adopted at the twenty-seventh session (1986), the enjoyment of Covenant rights is not limited to citizens of States parties but must also be available to all individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, such as asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers and other persons who may find themselves in the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of the State party. This principle also applies to those within the power or effective control of the forces of a State party acting outside its territory, regardless of the circumstances in which such power or effective control was obtained, such as forces constituting a national contingent of a State party assigned to an international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement operation. 6.5 In the present case the Committee notes that since 2004, Green Park International and Green Mount International have been registered and domiciled in Canada, where they pay taxes. The companies themselves accordingly are within the State party’s territory and jurisdiction. While the human rights obligations of a State on its own territory cannot be equated in all respects with its obligations outside its territory, the Committee considers that there are situations where a State party has an obligation to ensure that rights under the Covenant are not impaired by extraterritorial activities conducted by enterprises under its jurisdiction. 14 That is particularly the case where violations of human rights that are as serious in nature as the ones raised in this communication are at stake. 6.6 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the address of the president and secretary of both corporations is in the city of Herzliya, Israel, and that the only connection between Canada and the facts alleged is the alleged involvement of two legal entities that are incorporated in Quebec but have no other meaningful connection to that province or to the State party. The Committee also notes that the Superior Court of Quebec declined jurisdiction on the discretionary grounds of forum non conveniens, as indicated in paragraphs 4.6–4.11, because, inter alia: (a) there appeared to be little connection between Quebec and the persons involved in the claim before the Court, as all the plaintiffs and witnesses resided in Israel or the West Bank; (b) the corporations had been incorporated in Canada for domestic Israeli tax reasons only and acted as alter egos for and on behalf of a corporation which was not a resident of Canada and did not have any assets in Canada; (c) Green Park International and Green Mount International themselves had no assets in Canada. Their assets, if any, would appear to be located in the West Bank, where the buildings in dispute were situated; and (d) the plaintiffs had only turned to Canadian courts after some of their claims had been considered and rejected by judicial authorities in Israel. 6.7 Taking into consideration the elements of connection with the State party set out in paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 above, the Committee also considers that, in the present case, the authors have not provided the Committee with sufficient information about the extent to which Canada could be considered responsible as a result of a failure to exercise reasonable due diligence over the relevant extraterritorial activities of the two corporations. This includes, for example, a lack of information regarding the existing regulations in place in the State party governing the corporations’ activities and the State party’s capacity to effectively regulate the activities at issue; the specific nature of the corporations’ role in the construction of the settlement and the impact of their actions on the rights of the authors; and the information reasonably available to the State party regarding these activities, including the foreseeability of their consequences. On the basis of the information provided 14 12 See communications No. 1539/2006, Munaf v. Romania, Views adopted on 30 July 2009, para. 14.2; and No. 2005/2010, Hicks v. Australia, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, paras. 4.4–4.6. See also CCPR/C/CAN/CO/6, para. 6; CCPR/C/DEU/CO/6, para. 6; and general comment No. 31, para. 8. GE.17-21900