A/HRC/11/31 page 8 control over territory did not imply total control over individuals. Therefore, it was suggested that the more effective the control a State had over a territory or a population, the more the human rights paradigm applied. Nevertheless, some international humanitarian law rules may be the lex specialis, because it had the more specialized rules for a particular situation of armed conflict. 16. It was stated that measures taken by States in the “war on terror”, which was not, as such, an armed conflict, had led to confusion concerning the applicable legal standards. When States pursue potential members of armed groups, or alleged terrorists, international human rights law remained applicable regarding all issues including, inter alia, detention, treatment and fair trial. In addition, international humanitarian law may be applicable, depending on the qualification of each specific situation on a case-by-case basis and on whether the pursuit had a link with an armed conflict. 17. The territorial scope of application of both bodies of law was discussed. It was recalled that, in conformity with the rules of interpretation laid out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Human Rights Committee had interpreted article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as calling for the application of States’ human rights obligations concerning all individuals within their territory and to all individuals subject to their jurisdiction. This interpretation was consistent with the context and with the object and purpose of the treaty. Concerning international humanitarian law, it was pointed out that, in the case of international armed conflicts, it applied to parties to a conflict, irrespective of territorial considerations. In situations of non-international armed conflicts, international humanitarian law applied within the territory of the State engaged in armed conflict against non-State entities. Nevertheless, it was also highlighted that, increasingly, non-international armed conflicts had an international component owing to the phenomenon of cross-border hostilities. Also, the participation of foreign troops in non-international armed conflicts, with the consent of the territorial State or under the authority of the Security Council, added a transnational element to these conflicts that was not explicitly regulated in international humanitarian law. 18. With regard to the question of the subjects of the law, questions were raised about the obligations of non-State actors under international human rights law and international humanitarian law. While it was clear that both bodies of law mainly established legal obligations for States, it was discussed how each one also regulated the conduct of non-State actors and international organizations. Concerning non-State actors, it was highlighted that, in accordance with common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, and more generally international humanitarian law rules applicable to non-international armed conflicts, non-State actors engaged in a non-international armed conflict had, as a minimum, international humanitarian law obligations to protect persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who had laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat, as well as further obligations provided for in Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions and customary international law. On the other hand, the extent of human rights obligations of non-State actors was not clear as they were not usually parties to human rights treaties. 19. Regarding the issue of whether international organizations participating in an armed conflict have human rights and international humanitarian law obligations, it was discussed