A/HRC/41/36 45. Outside those narrowly defined conditions, the use of extraterritorial force is unlawful under international law governing inter-State relationships. Extraterritorial force is also unlawful under international human rights law, in that a State party cannot perpetrate violations of its obligations on the territory of another State that it could not perpetrate on its own territory.27 The application of human rights treaty obligations to the conduct of a State outside its territory has been confirmed by, among others, the International Court of Justice, the Human Rights Committee, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. 28 46. Furthermore, customary law prohibits States from sending their agents to the territory of another State to execute their own laws or policies: This ban on the extraterritorial enforcement of a State’s laws or policies comes from international law’s basic rules on jurisdiction. While States enjoy jurisdiction to prescribe laws governing some conduct beyond their borders – e.g., by their own nationals – and States can use their courts to adjudicate matters taking place abroad, enforcement of a State’s laws or policies on another State’s territory without the permission of the other State is unlawful.29 The jurisprudence on rendition and extraordinary rendition further suggests that the obligation to protect against acts by foreign States may be invoked whether or not those foreign States acted with the acquiescence or agreement of the receiving State. 30 47. One evident implication of the obligation to protect against actions by other States is that its implementation is likely to involve intelligence agencies whose mandates include monitoring foreign States within and outside national territories. 48. The responsibility of intelligence agencies to protect the right to life stems from the well-recognized principle according to which the obligation of a State to protect applies to all government institutions: The duty to protect by law the right to life also requires States parties to organize all State organs and governance structures through which public authority is exercised in a manner consistent with the need to respect and ensure the right to life, including establishing by law adequate institutions and procedures for preventing deprivation of life, investigating and prosecuting potential cases of unlawful deprivation of life, meting out punishment and providing full reparation.31 C. Extraterritorial application 49. The analysis by and understanding of the Human Rights Committee of the scope of the responsibility to protect is that it extends to all persons subject to the State’s jurisdiction, that is, all persons over whose enjoyment of the right to life it exercises power or effective control. This includes persons located outside any territory effectively controlled by the 27 28 29 30 31 10 See A/68/382. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, para. 109; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 10; and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Coard and Others v. United States, report No. 109/99, case 10.951, 29 September 1999, para. 37. See www.lawfareblog.com/khashoggi-murder-how-mohammed-bin-salman-underestimatedinternational-law. CCPR/C/POL/CO/6, para. 15. The Committee ruled that to surrender a prisoner knowingly to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that the prisoner would be in danger of being tortured runs counter to the object and purpose of the prohibition against torture enshrined in article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The same conclusion applies to surrendering a prisoner to a situation where the prisoner could be killed or disappeared. See articles 2, 3, 10 and 14 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36, para. 19.