A/HRC/14/40 humanitarian law become applicable and help to prevent the abuse of a State’s emergency powers. The Committee further indicated that the Covenant requires that even during an armed conflict measures derogating from the Covenant are allowed only if, and to the extent that, the situation constitutes a threat to the life of the nation, after a careful analysis of its justification and why such a measure is necessary and legitimate in the circumstances. In relation to the mutually reinforcing nature of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, the Committee indicated, for example, that the Covenant requires that no measure derogating from the provisions of the Covenant may be inconsistent with the State party’s other obligations under international law, particularly the rules of international humanitarian law. Moreover, States parties may in no circumstance invoke the Covenant’s provisions on derogations as justification for acting in violation of humanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law, for instance by taking hostages, by imposing collective punishments, through arbitrary deprivations of liberty or by deviating from fundamental principles of fair trial, including the presumption of innocence. 28. Experts further noted that in general comment 31 the Human Rights Committee further confirmed that the Covenant applies in situations of armed conflict to which the rules of international humanitarian law are applicable. The Committee noted that while in respect of certain Covenant rights more specific rules of international humanitarian law may be especially relevant for the purposes of the interpretation of the Covenant, both bodies of law are complementary, not mutually exclusive. In relation to the territorial scope of the Covenant, experts recalled that the Human Rights Committee indicated that States parties are required to respect and to ensure the Covenant rights to all persons who may be within their territory and to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. This means that a State party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State party, even if not situated within the territory of the State party. Furthermore, the enjoyment of Covenant rights is not limited to citizens of States parties but must also be available to all individuals, who may find themselves in the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of the State party. This principle also applies to those within the power or effective control of the forces of a State party acting outside its territory, regardless of the circumstances in which such power or effective control was obtained, such as forces constituting a national contingent of a State party assigned to an international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement operation. 29. Experts also recalled that the Human Rights Committee has issued concluding observations in which it has referred to the application of the Covenant to situations of armed conflict. In its concluding observations on the United States of America’s periodic report (CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1), for example, the Committee noted with concern the restrictive interpretation made by the State of its obligations under the Covenant, as a result, in particular, of its position that the Covenant does not apply with respect to individuals under its jurisdiction but outside its territory, nor in time of war, despite the contrary opinions and established jurisprudence of the Committee and the International Court of Justice. Experts further indicated that, in its concluding observations on Israel’s periodic report (CCPR/CO/78/ISR), the Committee noted the State party’s position that the Covenant does not apply beyond its own territory, notably in the West Bank and in Gaza, especially as long as there is a situation of armed conflict in these areas. The Committee reiterated the view that the applicability of the regime of international humanitarian law during an armed conflict does not preclude the application of the Covenant. The Committee further noted that the applicability of the regime of international humanitarian law does not preclude accountability of States parties under the Covenant for the actions of their authorities outside their own territories, including in occupied territories. 30. It was also indicated that the Human Rights Committee had expressed its concern in relation to the use by Israel of targeted killings of those identified by the State party as 8