CDL-AD(2006)009 - 24 - (b) the offence has been committed by or against a national or permanent resident of such State; (c) the offence is against the security of such State; (d) the offence consists of a breach of any rules or regulations relating to the flight or manoeuvre of aircraft in force in such State; (e) the exercise of jurisdiction is necessary to ensure the observance of any obligation of such State under a multilateral international agreement.” 101. This provision does not limit the jurisdiction of the territorial State but only the exercise of its right to interfere with an aircraft in flight. In the first place, serious offences of abduction, torture etc. certainly have “effect” on the territorial state. Where the conditions of a prisoner on a plane do not in themselves constitute inhuman or degrading treatment, all acts involved in transferring by air a prisoner to a place where he or she runs a real risk of being tortured may not necessarily be criminal offences in the territorial State. This will depend upon how the relevant offences and inchoate offences (preparation, conspiracy etc.) are formulated in the law in the territorial State (e.g. whether the acts in question constitute a continuing offence of abduction) and that State’s rules on extraterritorial crime, in particular, whether the deliberate handing over of a person to extraterritorial torture is an offence. It should be stressed however that the obligations of a Council of Europe member State to ensure protection of human rights (see above, paras. 62-67, and below para. 146) are not limited simply to enforcing its criminal law. Thus, it is not decisive that, in a particular case, a territorial State may not, in fact, make all acts involved in transfer punishable, or exercise jurisdiction over these. In addition, according to subparagraph (e) of Article 4 of the Tokyo Convention, the limitation of the exercise of the right of the territorial State to interfere with an aircraft in flight does not apply when “the exercise of jurisdiction is necessary to ensure the observance of any obligation of such State under a multilateral international agreement”, such as the European Convention of Human Rights. Therefore, if the positive obligations arising under the ECHR require a member State of the Council of Europe to investigate possible violations of human rights committed in an aircraft in flight through its airspace, this member State is not barred by the Tokyo Convention to interfere with this aircraft in flight. 102. The question arises in this context of what would be the status of an airplane registered in the flag State as civil aircraft but carrying out “State functions” (such as special missions for the transport of prisoners) which entered the airspace of another State without seeking a specific authorisation or without following the applicable procedures for State aircraft. 103. In the opinion of the Venice Commission, state aircraft can only claim immunity inasmuch as they make their state function known to the territorial State through the appropriate channels. If the public purpose was not declared in order to circumvent the requirement of obtaining the necessary permission(s), then the State will be estopped from claiming State aircraft status65 and the airplane will be deemed to be civil and thus falling within the scope of application of the Chicago Convention, including its Article 16 providing for the territorial State’s right to search and inspection. The territorial State could request the airplane to land and could proceed to search and inspection and take the necessary measures to put an end to possible violations it 65 ICJ judgment on the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands) [1969] ICJ Reports 4 at 26 (§ 30).