- 27 - CDL-AD(2006)009 October 2001, after US officials presented findings on investigations into the attacks to the North Atlantic Council, concluding that the Al-Qaeda terrorist network was responsible. 113. On 4 October 2001, the Allies agreed on a series of measures to assist the US-led campaign against Al-Qaeda and related terrorism73. These include enhanced intelligence sharing and cooperation, blanket over-flight clearances in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, and access to ports and airfields for US and other Allied craft for operations against terrorism. 114. In application of this agreement, certain NATO member-States granted US (and NATO member States’) aircraft either blanket over-flight clearances for certain time-periods, or overflight rights upon request74. 115. Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty does not contain an obligation for member States of the Council of Europe to allow irregular transfers of prisoners or to grant blanket overflight rights, for the purposes of fighting against terrorism. That treaty provision at most contains an obligation to take measures, including cooperation and consent, into consideration; but leaves any decision as to concrete measures to the appreciation of the State concerned of the necessity of such measures in order to restore and maintain security. In addition, neither Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty nor any Agreements in execution thereof can, or claim to, diminish the obligations and responsibilities of member States of the Council of Europe under human rights treaties. SECTION II – THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEMBER STATES A. Council of Europe member States’ obligations in respect of arrests by foreign authorities on their territory 116. A State party to the European Convention on Human Rights is presumed to exercise its jurisdiction over its whole territory. Any arrest of a person by foreign authorities on the territory of a Council of Europe member State without the agreement of this member State is a violation of its sovereignty and is therefore contrary to international law. In addition, the now defunct European Commission of Human Rights has stated that “an arrest made by the authorities of one State on the territory of another State, without the prior consent of the State concerned, does not only involve the State responsibility vis-à-vis the other State, but also affects that person’s individual right to security under Article 5 § 1”.75 117. The European Court of Human Rights has clearly expressed how the responsibility of a Council of Europe member State is engaged in relation to the arrest of an individual on its territory by foreign authorities: irrespective of whether the arrest amounts to a violation of the law of the State in which the suspect has been arrested, the responsibility of the host State is 73 The Commission has not been able to see the text of this agreement. 74 See US Department of Defense, Fact Sheet of 7 June 2002, International contributions to the War against terrorism, at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2002/d20020607contributions.pdf. 75 European Court of Human Rights, Stocké v. Germany judgment of 12 October 1989, Series A no. 199, opinion of the Commission, p. 24, § 167.