state party has in relation to territory, even territory outside its geographic boundaries.175 The HRC has made it clear that the ICCPR has extra-territorial reach where persons are within the power or effective control of the state party, even if not situated in the territory of the state party.176 Similarly, the International Court of Justice held that the ICCPR extends to “acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside of its own territory.”177 It is under these principles that the ICCPR and all other human rights treaties ratified by the United States were considered to extend to the actions of the United States in relation to those detained at Guantánamo Bay.178 In taking counter-terrorism measures, therefore, a state must be aware that its obligations do not necessarily cease at its frontiers.179 This is particularly the case where a state’s armed forces are deployed overseas, for example in a peacekeeping operation. It is now becoming standard practice for the UN treaty bodies to ask member states what measures are in place to ensure that their armed forces abroad act compatibly with their treaty obligations. Prohibition of the abuse of rights Rights such as freedom of expression cannot be exercised to destroy the rights of others.180 Nevertheless, even if a person or group of persons is engaged in activities aimed at the destruction of human rights, it is not necessary to take away every one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed to those persons. 175 “As regards the question of imputability, the Court recalls in the first place that […] under its established case-law the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ under Article 1 of the Convention is not restricted to the national territory of the Contracting States. Accordingly, the responsibility of Contracting States can be involved by acts and omissions of their authorities which produce effects outside their own territory. Of particular significance to the present case the Court held, in conformity with the relevant principles of international law governing State responsibility, that the responsibility of a Contracting Party could also arise when as a consequence of military action - whether lawful or unlawful - it exercises effective control of an area outside its national territory. The obligation to secure, in such an area, the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention, derives from the fact of such control whether it be exercised directly, through its armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration […]”, ECtHR, Loizidou v. Turkey, Case no. 40/1993/435/514, 28 November 1996, para. 52. The concept of “jurisdiction” was also thoroughly examined in ECtHR, Banković and Others v. Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and UK, Application no. 52207/99, paras. 54-73. 176 “States Parties are required by article 2(1), to respect and to ensure the Covenant rights to all persons who may be within their territory and to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. This means that a State party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of the State Party.”, op. cit., note 127, HRC, General Comment No. 31, para. 10. 177 Op. cit., note 124, ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, para. 111. 178 Report of the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Leila Zerrougui; the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy; the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Manfred Nowak; the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Asma Jahangir; and the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, Paul Hunt, Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, doc. E/CN.4/2006/120, 27 February 2006, paras. 10-11. 179 The ICCPR is more explicit than the ECHR in relation to jurisdiction and extra-territoriality. Article 2(1) ICCPR reads: “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant.” 180 This is contained in Article 5 ICCPR and Article 17 ECHR. Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 75