A/HRC/33/48 B. Human rights bodies 33. Within the United Nations system, there are a number of treaty-based mechanisms that potentially allow individuals to pursue claims against States based on violations of human rights.32 Some of these mechanisms are, a priori, relevant to the situation of persons whose human rights have been infringed by unilateral coercive measures. It must, however, be emphasized that, in certain cases, such mechanisms may be unavailable because some States imposing unilateral coercive may not have ratified the relevant treaties or protocols. 34. It can be assumed that individuals whose enjoyment of human rights is adversely affected by the imposition of unilateral coercive measures could lodge complaints against the targeting State(s) with the Human Rights Committee or the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, respectively, insofar as the targeting State(s) have ratified the Optional Protocol(s). Each Committee may consider individual communications alleging violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant concerned. As such, parties affected may initiate claims alleging violation of their rights pursuant to, for example, article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which protects the right to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and article 12 of the same Covenant, which protects the right to health.33 35. While anyone can lodge a complaint with the above-mentioned Committees alleging violations of rights protected under the respective Covenants, the Optional Protocols to the Covenants require that the authors of the communications must be under the jurisdiction of the State responsible for the violation (and the State must have ratified both the Covenant concerned and its Optional Protocol). It is unclear whether this requirement bars the submission of a communication against a State that has violated a protected right beyond its borders.34 36. However, extraterritorial application under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should not be ruled out. Indeed, States may be bound by their obligations under the Covenant when acting extraterritorially.35 The jurisprudence of international and regional bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee, the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights indicate that Governments can be held to account if they violate the fundamental rights of persons living outside their borders.36 37. In its general comment No. 15 (2002) on the right to water, for example, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights made it clear that a State should not deprive another country of the ability to realize the right to water for persons in its jurisdiction (para. 31). The Committee has also indicated in its concluding observations on periodic reports of States parties that jurisdiction includes any territory over which a State 32 33 34 35 36 10 See E/CN.4/2005/WG.23/2. See A/HRC/70/345, paras. 34-44. See Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, “The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, In-Brief No. 2 (Geneva, July 2013), p. 12. Available from www.geneva-academy.ch/docs/publications/The%20optional% 20protocol%20In%20brief%202.pdf. See C. Courtis and M. Sepúlveda, “Are extraterritorial obligations reviewable under the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR?”, Nordic Journal of Human Rights, vol. 27, No. 1 (2009); and F. Coomans, “The extraterritorial scope of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the work of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, Human Rights Law Review, vol. 11, No. 1 (2011). See Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, In-Brief No. 2, pp. 12-13.