A/HRC/15/21 matters of human rights law; yet others may be matters of both these branches of international law."58 71. The Mission is of the view that the conduct of the IDF on board the Mavi Marmara as well as the conduct of the authorities in the aftermath of the operation is not limited strictly to the law of armed conflict, but is subject also to human rights law. Indeed human rights law and international humanitarian law are not mutually exclusive but rather should be regarded as complementary and mutually reinforcing to ensure the fullest protection to the persons concerned. 72. The International Covenant contains several articles which cannot be derogated from even “in times of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation (art. 4).” Nonderogable rights include the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment. Israel has made a notification under article 4(3) of the International Covenant – states of emergency, dated 3 October 1991, specifically relevant to article 9 regarding liberty and security of person.59 In this connection, the Human Rights Committee extends in its General Comment No. 29 the list of non-derogable provisions as provided for by article 4 (2), emphasizing that States parties to the Covenant “may in no circumstances invoke article 4 of the Covenant as a 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 deprivation of liberty or by deviating from fundamental principles of fair trial, including the presumption of innocence.”60 73. Article 2 of the International Covenant obliges each State party to respect and to ensure to all individuals “within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction” the rights recognized within it. The extra-territorial applicability was elaborated by the Human Rights Committee in its general comment 31: “A State party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone with the power or effective control of that State party, even if not situated within the territory of the State party.”61 The applicability of the ICCPR “in respect of acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory” was confirmed by the ICJ in its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Wall.62 The 58 59 60 61 62 Legal Consequences of the construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, para. 101, para 106. "Since its establishment, the State of Israel has been the victim of continuous threats and attacks on its very existence as well as on the life and property of its citizens. "These have taken the form of threats of war, of actual armed attacks and campaigns of terrorism resulting in the murder of and injury to human beings. "In view of the above, the State of Emergency which was proclaimed in May 1948 has remained in force ever since. This situation constitutes a public emergency within the meaning of article 4 (1) of the Covenant. "The Government of Israel has therefore found it necessary, in accordance with the said article 4, to take measures to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, for the defence of the State and for the protection of life and property, including the exercise of powers of arrest and detention. "In so far as any of these measures are inconsistent with article 9 of the Covenant, Israel thereby derogates from its obligations under that provision." Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 29, para. 11 (HRI/GEN/Rev.9 (Vol.I)) Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31, para. 10. Legal Consequences of the construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004,, paragraph 111. 17