II.  REQUIREMENTS, LIMITATIONS AND EFFECTS OF THE CONCURRENT APPLICABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICT the […] Covenant” (art. 2.1). A restrictive interpretation of this provision considers that States cannot be held accountable for human rights violations committed outside their territory.44 This interpretation, however, does not properly take into consideration the Covenant’s object and purpose. In this respect, the Human Rights Committee has stated 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.” The Committee has interpreted that rights must be available to all individuals who are in the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of the State. Moreover, it has indicated that the principle of extraterritorial protection “also applies to those within the power or effective control of the forces of a State party acting outside its territory”.45 This conclusion is supported by the International Court of Justice, which concluded that “the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is applicable in respect of acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory.”46 The Committee against Torture has indicated that “the State party should recognize and ensure that the Convention applies at all times, whether in peace, war or armed conflict, in any territory under its jurisdiction”. The Committee defined the territory under the State party’s jurisdiction in terms of all persons under the effective control of the State’s authorities, of whichever type, wherever located in the world.47 The International Court of Justice also held that article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child imposes obligations on States parties to each child within their jurisdiction and observed that the Convention could be applied extraterritorially.48 In a later case it recalled that international   See, for example, the point of view of the United States of America expressed in a periodic report to the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/USA/3, annex I). 45   General comment No. 31 (2004), para. 10. 46   Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall, para. 111. 47   CAT/C/USA/CO/2, paras. 14–15. 48   Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall, para. 113. 44 43