PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court In the case of Nada v. Switzerland, the respondent government argued that the application was incompatible ratione personae because the travel ban they had imposed on the applicant for his alleged connection to the Al-Qaeda was based on a United Nations Security Council Resolution and thus attributable to the United Nations.404 The Court was not convinced by this argument and reasoned that Security Council Resolutions required States to act in their own names and to implement them at the national level. The travel ban was thus attributable to Switzerland and the application compatible ratione personae.405 The Court has further declared inadmissible numerous complaints directed against private persons for whom the respondent State was not responsible.406 In the case of Papon v. France, the applicant complained of the hostile media campaign to which he had been subjected and the attitude of the civil parties before and during his trial.407 The Court rejected this complaint as incompatible ratione personae holding that the State authorities could not be held responsible for the actions of private persons. However, particularly if the State delegates core powers to private actors - such as law enforcement activities or prison management - the State will remain entirely responsible for their actions. Also, due diligence requires State agents to monitor, supervise and remedy possible human rights violations of certain private actors. In addition, a Contracting State could be held liable for the acts of private persons under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention. Illustrative in this context is the case of M.C. v. Bulgaria.408 The applicant alleged that she was raped by two friends and that the authorities did not prosecute the alleged perpetrators. The Court reiterated that, under Article 3 of the Convention, member States had a positive obligation both to enact criminal legislation to effectively punish rape and to apply this legislation through effective investigation and prosecution.409 Moreover, applications directed towards an entity that is not a party to the Convention are incompatible ratione personae. In the case of Kyriakoula Stephens v. Cyprus, Turkey and the United Nations410 the applicant complained that her house has been severely damaged by the fighting between Turkish and Greek-Cypriot forces and that she was denied access to her house, which was under the control of the United Nations. The Court reasoned that the United Nations’ legal personality 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, 12 September 2012, § 102. Ibid., §§ 120–123. Durini v. Italy, Commission decision, 19217/91,12 January 1994. Papon v. France (No. 2) (dec.), no. 54210/00, 15 November 2001. M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, 4 December 2003. Ibid., para. 153. Kyriakoula Stephens v. Cyprus, Turkey and the United Nations (dec.), no. 45267/06, 11 December 2008. 119