Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies General Comment No. 2, and noting that “this interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction is applicable in respect not only to Article 2, but of all the provisions set forth in the Convention” 107 asserted that “the Civil Guard officers exercised control over the persons on board the vessel and were therefore responsible for their safety”.108 Therefore, the case law of the HRC and the CAT Committee indicates that States are responsible for violations of rights perpetrated by their agents when those agents operate abroad and exercise effective control over a person or territory, at least so long as those agents are acting in their official capacity. iv. Ratione Personae States parties are generally responsible for the acts of their own agents. This is so even if the act is perpetrated by an agent who exceeds his or her authority or disobeys instructions.109 For example, the HRC found that the State party was responsible for a “disappearance” perpetrated by a corporal who kidnapped the victim, in Sarma v. Sri Lanka, despite the State’s contention that the corporal acted beyond authority and without the knowledge of his superior officers.110 Furthermore, under the ICCPR and the CAT, States parties must take reasonable steps to prevent private actors (whether they be natural or artificial persons like corporations) from abusing the rights of others within their jurisdiction.111 For example, the HRC has stated that: It is … implicit in Article 7 that States parties have to take positive measures to ensure that private citizens or entities do not inflict torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment on others within their power.112 It seems unlikely that a State is responsible under either treaty for the acts of its private citizens committed outside the territory over which a State has legal or effective control.113 However, a State probably is so liable when private actors are acting under its authority, such as pursuant to a military contract. For example, the HRC expressed its concern to the US over the compatibility of certain interrogation 107 CAT Committee, Sonko v. Spain, Comm. No. 368/2008, para. 10.3. See also CAT Committee, J.H.A. v. Spain, Comm. No. 323/2007, para. 8.2. 108 Ibid. 109 See Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission at its Fifty-third Session, (2001) UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1, Article 7. 110 HRC, Sarma v. Sri Lanka, Comm. No. 950/2000, para. 9.2. 111 See Sections 3.1.2 and 4.1.2. 112 HRC, General Comment No. 31, para. 8. 113 Joseph and Castan (2013), para. 4.24. 58