CAT/C/53/D/511/2012 claims are inadmissible if they require the Court to first rule on the actions of, or make a determination on the international responsibility of, a State that has not consented to jurisdiction. Accordingly, because China has not made the declaration under article 22 of the Convention, the State party considers the communication inadmissible. 4.3 The State party further considers that the communication is without merit because it relates to an alleged act of torture by a Chinese official in China, and article 14 does not impose an obligation on a State to provide civil jurisdiction with respect to acts of torture committed by a foreign official in a foreign State.14 The State party bases this interpretation on the following considerations: (a) because article 14 must be interpreted in the light of its ordinary meaning, the omission of the words “in any territory under its jurisdiction” does not mean that article 14 applies regardless of where the torture took place and by whom it was perpetrated;15 (b) the ordinary meaning of the phrase “obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation” is directed at enforceable civil remedies, and the State party is in no position to enforce any judgment its courts render against the defendants in China, given the absence of any connection of the defendants with the jurisdiction of Australia;16 (c) the ordinary meaning of article 14 must be considered in its context, the key to which is contained in article 2, paragraph 1, which provides that a State party must take effective measures “to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction”; (d) although the complainant relies on article 5, paragraph 1, this provision only imposes an obligation on State parties to assert criminal jurisdiction over certain extraterritorial acts “if that State considers it appropriate”, and does not support finding a broader obligation with respect to civil proceedings; 17 (e) the travaux préparatoires indicate that the question of a broad, “universal” civil jurisdiction was not discussed by the State parties at all; thus, it is inconceivable that such jurisdiction was intended to be imposed;18 (f) in the light of the clear link between the right to redress in article 14 and the rights to investigation, complaint and examination in articles 12 and 13,19 the reference in the latter two articles to “in any territory under its jurisdiction” provides relevant context to the interpretation of article 14 and supports the view that it does not apply to acts of torture committed by a foreign official outside the State party’s territory; (g) contrary to the complainant’s argument, there is no contextual link between article 14, which is focused on the act of torture itself, and articles 6, paragraph 1; 10; and 15, which are concerned with measures relating to an act of torture (namely, police custody measures, provision of training to persons within a State’s control, and use of evidence in proceedings); (h) articles 14 15 16 17 18 19 The State party cites the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna on 23 May 1969, entered into force on 27 January 1980. The State party also states that, while it does not necessarily accept all the facts set forth by the complainant, for the purpose of responding to the author’s arguments concerning the interpretation of article 14, it does not seek to dispute these facts. The State party cites the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, article 31, paragraph 1. The State party cites the Committee’s general comment No. 3 (2012) on implementation of article 14 by States parties, paras. 5, 6, 27 and 37; the Committee’s working document on article 14 for comments: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on the obligation of States parties to implement article 14 (forty-sixth session, 9 May–3 June 2011), para. 25 (referring to the obligation to provide an “enforceable right”). The State party cites Jones v. Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya AS Saudiya (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and ORS (2006) UKHL 26 (Jones) (finding that article 14 was confined to acts of torture occurring within a State’s territory and noting the relevance of article 5 in reaching this conclusion). The State party also submits that if the drafters had intended States to be obliged to afford the type of civil remedy requested by the author, they would have explicitly provided for it in the text, in a similar manner to the qualifications set out in article 5. The State party cites Committee against Torture, summary record of the second part (public) of the 646th meeting, held on 6 May 2005, CAT/C/SR.646/Add.1, paras. 41–45. The State party cites general comment No. 3, para. 23. 9