A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 180. In contrast to other provisions in the Convention against Torture, article 14 does not contain an express limitation regarding the applicability of the rights contained therein to acts of torture committed within the territory under the jurisdiction of the State party in question. In light of the drafting history and the reservations made by State parties upon ratification, an extraterritorial scope of the right to a remedy remains however ambiguous.118 In my opinion, a direct legal obligation of the State of residence to provide full reparation to victims of torture inflicted in a foreign territory and without any involvement of that State can at the present state of international law not be construed under article 14 CAT. I welcome however, recent developments of international standards towards greater responsibility of States for transnational human rights violations as expressed, for example, in Principle 16 of the UN Basic Principles which stipulates that “States should endeavour to establish national programmes for reparation and other assistance to victims in the event that the parties liable for the harm suffered [including foreign States] are unable or unwilling to meet their obligations”. In addition, obligations of the host State to provide direct assistance to victims of torture who have sought protection in foreign countries may of course arise under other international treaties, such as the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health under article 12 ICESCR, or the specific obligations under the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. 181. In any case, States should not obstruct the efforts of victims to obtain reparation from perpetrators, but should instead take such legislative measures as are necessary to enable survivors of torture to sue their tormenters for damages in civil courts. Such measures concern in particular the establishment of jurisdiction of a State’s civil courts in tort cases against the perpetrators, including where the act of torture was committed outside the territory of the forum State. It also pertains to legislative exceptions to State immunity and functional immunity of foreign State officials to enable victims to effectively claim reparation from the perpetrator State or those State officials responsible for torture. 182. In practice, few States have enacted or are considering enacting such enabling legislation which establishes universal jurisdiction of domestic courts in civil cases. The most well-known example is the US Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), which was used in the famous Filartiga v Pena-Irala case to allow an alien to sue another alien for damages in a US court for injuries caused by extraterritorial violations of international law.119 This legislation was subsequently at issue before the US Supreme Court in the case Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, in which the Court in principle acknowledged its jurisdiction over extraterritorial tort claims. In its amicus curiae brief submitted in this case, the European Commission argued that while the principle of universal civil jurisdiction remained controversial, it should most appropriately be applied in relation to those human rights violations for which universal criminal jurisdiction is established. Moreover, the principle was considered particularly relevant in cases where the claimant would otherwise face a denial of justice. 183. Ironically, given its pioneering role with regard to civil suits under domestic legislation, the US has been among the strongest opponents of an extraterritorial application of the procedural obligations under article 14 CAT. While an extraterritorial scope of the right of victims of torture to a remedy and reparation has not yet been explicitly assumed in the State reporting procedures under the Convention, the Committee against Torture has however encouraged States “to review their position under article 14 of the Convention to 118 119 48 Nowak/McArthur, p. 492. See in particular the express reservation made by the US upon ratification, which limits the application of article 14 to acts of torture “committed in the territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party”. The case concerned the torture and murder of a young Paraguayan who was respectively the son and brother of the plaintiffs), Filártiga v Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (C.A., 2d Cir. 1980).