However, such an obligation must not be interpreted in a way that imposes an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities. The doctrine of positive obligations cannot be used as a mechanism for restricting the human rights of others. Horizontal application In theory, human rights are designed to regulate conduct between the individual and the state. The reality is, however, that they have been held to apply on a number of occasions in relation to disputes between two private parties. The fact that a public authority is not directly responsible for a breach of an individual’s human right does not render human rights irrelevant. However, such findings are not without controversy.171 In the counter-terrorism context, this issue is particularly significant. If human rights are only concerned with state accountability for violations of human rights, does this mean that those private entities that commit terrorist atrocities, such as Al Qaida, do not violate human rights? These questions are more than semantic, and in many ways go to the heart of the human rights compliant response to ensuring the control of terrorism. In his earliest reports, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights while Combating Terrorism has sought to address this issue.172 There is, however, no international consensus on this point. For the purposes of this manual, the emphasis will be on the responsibilities of states and how human rights assist them in countering terrorism. In certain circumstances, public authorities come under a duty to protect private individuals from breaches of their human rights by other private individuals.173 This issue of applying human rights to non-state actors is dealt with in detail below.174 Extra-territorial effect Human rights treaties secure rights to all within the jurisdiction of a state. What amounts to jurisdiction for the purposes of these treaties depends upon the extent of control that a 171 For example compare the rulings in op. cit., note 26, ECtHR, X. and Y. v. The Netherlands, paras. 21-30; ECtHR, Costello-Roberts v. UK, Application no. 13134/87, 25 March 1993, paras. 25-28; and ECommHR, Rommelfanger v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Application no. 12242/86, 6 September 1989. 172 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, Martin Scheinin, doc. E/CN.4/2006/98, 28 December 2005, paras. 67-71. 173 “The Court considers that the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals […]. Children and other vulnerable individuals, in particular, are entitled to State protection, in the form of effective deterrence, against such serious breaches of personal integrity”, ECtHR, A. v UK, Case no. 100/1997/884/1096, 23 September 1998, para. 22). For additional references, see ECtHR, M.C. v. Bulgaria, Application no. 39272/98, 4 December 2003, paras. 148-153. 174 See pages 92-94 below. 74 Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights