Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook that the local administration survives as a result of the Contracting State’s military and other support entails that State’s responsibility for its policies and action.396 Finally, ratione loci considerations also apply in the context of diplomatic and consular representatives abroad. The former Commission had already established that “authorised agents of a State, including diplomatic or consular agents, bring other persons or property within the jurisdiction of that State to the extent that they exercise authority over such persons or property.”397 The same is true for agents’ actions “on board craft and vessels registered in, or flying the flag of” a respondent State398 or where “in accordance with custom, treaty or other agreement, authorities of the Contracting State carry out executive or judicial functions on the territory of another State.”399 Furthermore, State responsibility under the Convention may be triggered by the use of force by a State’s agents operating outside its territory, for instance where an individual is taken into custody abroad as in the case of PKK leader Öcalan.400 c) Incompatibility Ratione Personae Article 35 § 3 of the Convention requires the Court to reject as inadmissible an application that is not compatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention or its Protocols. This requirement implies that the Court cannot examine an application against a State that is not a party to the Convention or the relevant Protocol401 or against an inter-governmental organization which has not acceded to the Convention.402 However, actions by member States based upon a legal act of an international organization, are not beyond the reach of the Court.403 396 Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia, nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, 19 October 2012, § 106. See also Anthony Cullen and Steven Wheatley, “The Human Rights of Individuals in de facto Regimes under the European Convention on Human Rights”, in Human Rights Law Review, vol. 10, 2013, pp. 691–728. 397 M. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 17392/90, 14 October 1992, § 1; see also X v. Federal Republic of Germany, no. 1611/62, Commission decision, 25 September 1965, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, vol. 8, pp. 158 and 169; X v. the United Kingdom, no. 7547/76, Commission decision, 15 December 1977. 398 Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, 12 December 2001, § 73. 399 Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, 7 July 2011, § 135, with reference to Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, no. 12747/87, 26 June 1992. 400 Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, 12 May 2005, § 91. 401 Rachel Horsham v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision, no. 23390/94, 4 September 1995, § 3. 402 Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (dec.) [GC], nos. 71412/01 and 78166/01, 2 May 2007, § 143. 403 “The State is considered to retain Convention liability in respect of treaty commitments subsequent to the entry into force of the Convention.” Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, 30 June 2005, § 154, Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, 18 February 1999, §§ 29 and 32–34, and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, 12 July 2001, § 47. See generally Tobias Lock, “Beyond Bosphorus: The European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law on the Responsibility of member States of International Organisations under the European Convention on Human Rights”, in Human Rights Law Review, vol. 10, 2010, pp. 529–545. 118