90 United Nations Convention Against Torture and its Optional Protocol complaints filed against public servants, investigations, prosecutions and convictions of cases of torture and ill-​treatment by law enforcement, security, military, and prison personnel or results of disciplinary proceedings, as well as on honour crimes, trafficking, domestic and sexual violence, including sexual violence in detention, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, violence against minorities, and on means of redress, including compensation and rehabilitation provided to the victims.138 3.2 Meaning of ‘any territory under its jurisdiction’ 53  Article 4 of the 1975 Declaration and Article 3 of the Swedish draft referred to the obligation of a State to take measures to prevent torture and other forms of ill-​treatment from being practised ‘within its jurisdiction’.139 In 1979, France proposed to replace these words with ‘any territory under its jurisdiction’, because otherwise the obligation to prevent torture might even extend to a State’s own citizens resident in another country.140 But it was stressed that ‘any territory under its jurisdiction’ would also cover torture inflicted aboard ships, aircrafts and in occupied territories.141 54  This formulation, therefore, seems to be fairly clear. States have an obligation to take measures to prevent torture in their own territory (land and sea), but also under any other territory under their jurisdiction, such as aboard ships flying their flag, aircraft registered in accordance with their laws, occupied territories, or other territories where civilian or military authorities of the State exercise jurisdiction, whether lawful or not. 55  The Committee has explained that it understands the concept of ‘any territory under its jurisdiction’ to be linked with the principle of non-​derogability, and that it includes ‘any territory or facilities and must be applied to protect any person, citizen or non-​citizen without discrimination subject to the jure or de facto control of a State party’.142 This does not only mean the State party’s sovereign territory but ‘all areas where the State partly exercises, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, de jure or de facto effective control, in accordance with international law’.143 According to the Committee, States have an obligation to take measures to prevent torture not only on board of ships or aircrafts under the flag of the State party, but also during military occupation or peacekeeping operations, in places such as embassies, military bases, detention facilities, or any other areas over which the State party exercises factual or effective control. This interpretation is applicable also to other CAT Articles as well as the OPCAT. 56  The Committee has confirmed this interpretation equally in the individual complaints procedure, as well in its Concluding Observations. In the case Fatou Sonko v Spain, where Spanish Civil Guard officers exercised control over persons on board of a vessel and the Committee therefore emphasized the State Party’s responsibility for the persons’ safety.144 In its Concluding Observations to the UK’s report the Committee underlined its concern and called upon the UK to ‘publicly acknowledge that the Convention applies to all individuals who are subject to the State party’s jurisdiction or control, including to its armed forces, military advisers and other public servants deployed on operations 138   CAT/​C/​GC/​2 (n 1); CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Cambodia’ (2011) UN Doc CAT/​C/​KHM/​CO/​ 2, para 19; CAT/​C/​SEN/​CO/​3 (n 93) para 11; CAT/​C/​NZL/​CO/​6 (n 60) para 12; CAT/​C/​ROU/​CO/​2 (n 74) para 11; CAT/​C/​RUS/​CO/​5 (n 67) para 15; CAT/​C/​BOL/​CO/​2 (n 99) para 19. 139 140   See above 2.1.   See above 2.2. 141   See E/​CN.4/​1347, para 32; Burgers and Danelius (n 14) 123ff. See also Boulesbaa (n 26) 74. 142 143   CAT/​C/​GC/​2 (n 1) para  7.   CAT/​C/​GC/​2 (n 1) para  16. 144   Fatou Sonko v Spain, No 368/​2008, UN Doc CAT/​C/​47/​D/​368/​2008, 25 November 2011, para 10.3. Zach