CCPR/C/115/D/2005/2010 Government of the United States seeking to improve the protection available to the author and secured the release of another Australian detained at Guantanamo Bay (see annex II below, para. 17); (c) the author received 21 visits from Australian officials and police officers (see annex II below, para. 116) while he was in the custody of the United States, where Australian agents interviewed him to gather intelligence that was later used against him in the control order proceedings before the Australian courts (see annex II below, para. 39); (d) Australia was aware of the conditions of the plea agreement struck with the prosecution, which required the author to cooperate with the Australian authorities and contained other clauses that favoured Australia; (e) the author brought the treatment he had suffered to the attention of the Australian authorities who interviewed him and Australia requested the United States authorities to conduct an investigation into the allegations (see annex II below, para. 177). 4.4 It appears from those facts, which have not been contested by the State party, that the State party had some influence over the way the United States treated the author and was in a position to take positive measures to ensure that the author was treated in a manner consonant with the Covenant, including to take measures intended to remedy violations of the author’s rights. 4.5 However, the influence held by the State party cannot be seen as amounting to the exercise of power or effective control over the author, who was detained in a territory controlled by the United States that was not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the State party. 4.6 The Committee therefore concludes that, for the duration of the time that he spent in the custody of the United States, the author could not be considered to be under the State party’s “jurisdiction” in the sense of article 1 of the Optional Protocol and article 2 (1) of the Covenant. As a result, the Committee is precluded ratione loci from pronouncing on the author’s claims under articles 2 and 7 of the Covenant, which pertain to his treatment while in the custody of the United States. b. Alleged responsibility of Australia in relation to the enforcement of the prison sentence under the transfer arrangement 4.7 The Committee notes that, as a result of the transfer arrangement, the author was transferred to Australia on 20 May 2007 to serve the remainder of the sentence imposed on him by the United States Military Commission on 31 March 2007. The question before the Committee is whether, by keeping the author in prison until 29 December 2007 as a result of that arrangement, the State party violated his rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 4.8 The Committee observes that, by the time the transfer of the author took place, there was abundant information in the public domain that raised serious concerns about the fairness of the procedures before the United States Military Commission and that should have been enough to cast doubts among Australian authorities as to the legality and legitimacy of the author’s sentence. Many of those concerns had been expressed by the Committee in its concluding observations on the second and third periodic reports of the United States, adopted on 27 July 2006 (CCPR/C/USA/C/3/Rev.1), and by the Committee against Torture in its concluding observations on the second periodic report of the United States, adopted in May 2006 (CAT/C/USA/CO/2). Albeit subsequent to the facts alleged, the ruling dated 18 February 2015 of the United States Court of Military Commission Review in favour of the author leaves no doubt as to the unfairness of the proceedings followed against him and that the offence that had given rise to his conviction was retrospective. Furthermore, through the visits made to the author at Guantanamo Bay by Australian officials and law enforcement officers, the State party was in a good position to know the conditions of the author’s trial. 7