PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture a national contingent of a State Party assigned to an international peace-keeping or peace-enforcement operation.104 In this regard, the HRC has expressed concern in relation to the behaviour of Belgian soldiers in Somalia, and the behaviour of Dutch soldiers in the events surrounding the fall of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina.105 A State’s responsibility under the treaties sometimes extends beyond its borders to territories outside its control. For example, in López Burgos v. Uruguay the victim was kidnapped and detained in Buenos Aires, Argentina, by members of the Uruguayan Security and Intelligence Forces before being transported across the border to Uruguay where he was detained incommunicado for three months. The HRC held that although the arrest and the initial detention of the victim took place on foreign territory, the HRC was not barred from considering these allegations against Uruguay. The HRC listed the following reasons for allowing that part of the complaint to be heard:106 – The acts were perpetrated by Uruguayan agents acting on foreign soil. – The reference in the OP to “individuals subject to its jurisdiction” refers to the relationship between the individual and the State regardless of where the violations occurred. – Nothing in Article 2(1) explicitly asserts that a State party cannot be held accountable for violations of rights committed by its agents upon another state’s territory. – Article 5(1) of the ICCPR states that: Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant. – It would be unconscionable to assert that a State party can violate its ICCPR obligations on another State’s territory. In Sonko v. Spain, the victim died by drowning in Moroccan waters after having been thrown into the sea, in an area where he was out of his depth, by the Spanish border police, which previously had intercepted him and three other swimmers that were trying to reach the Spanish shore. The CAT Committee, recalling its 104 HRC, General Comment No. 31, para. 10. 105 See, respectively, Concluding Observations on Belgium, (1998) UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.99, para. 14 and Concluding Observations on the Netherlands, (2001) UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/NET, para. 8. 106 HRC, López Burgos v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 52/1979, paras. 12.1–12.3. See also HRC, Montero v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 106/81, para. 5. 57