PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture of the author’s property took place before the entry into force of the OP for the State Party.90 However, the communication was admissible ratione temporis due to lack of an effective investigation into the events, misconduct that persisted after the entry into force of the OP.91 Another example arose in Sankara et al. v. Burkina Faso. The victim complained about the State party’s failure to investigate the assassination of her husband, which had occurred in 1987. Proceedings in respect of that assassination commenced in 1997, and continued after 1999, the year in which the OP came into force for Burkina Faso. The State’s continued failure in those proceedings to properly investigate the death, as well as its continued failure to inform the family of the circumstances of the death or the precise location of the remains of the deceased, or to change the death certificate which listed “natural causes” (a blatant lie) as the cause of death, all amounted to breaches of Article 7 which began before, but continued to take place after 1999.92 iii. Ratione Loci Article 2(1) of the ICCPR states that a State party is responsible for respecting and ensuring the ICCPR rights of individuals “within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction”. Article 1 of the OP and Article 22 of the CAT allow complaints to be heard from individuals “subject to [the relevant State’s] jurisdiction”. One may submit a complaint against a State party regarding past violations even if one is not inside that State at the time of the submission.93 Unless a declaration is made to the contrary, a State’s ratification of a treaty will extend to a State’s entire territory including its colonies.94 For example, Kuok Koi v. Portugal concerned the application of the OP to Macao, a former Portuguese territory. Portugal has ratified both the ICCPR and the OP. The HRC held that the OP had applied to Macao when it was under Portuguese authority, stating that: As the intention of the OP is further implementation of Covenant rights, its non-applicability in any area within the jurisdiction of a State party cannot be assumed without any express indication (reservation/declaration) to that effect.95 As such, the OP applied to Macao prior to its transfer to the People’s Republic of China in 1999.96 91 92 93 94 95 96 Ibid., para. 6.5. HRC, Sankara et al v. Burkina Faso, Comm. No. 1159/03, paras. 6.3 and 12.2. See, e.g., HRC, Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, Comm. No. 1134/2002. See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, Article 29. HRC, Kuok Koi v. Portugal, Comm. No. 925/2000, para. 6.3. Considerable complexities arose in this case as the fact scenario straddled the transition of Macao from Portuguese to Chinese control. These complexities are not relevant to this Handbook. 55