A/HRC/27/37 against illegal surveillance practices by other States or business entities, in breach of their own human rights obligations. C. Who is protected, and where? 31. The extraterritorial application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to digital surveillance was addressed in several of the contributions received. Whereas it is clear that certain aspects of the recently revealed surveillance programmes, for instance, will trigger the territorial obligations of States conducting surveillance, additional concerns have been expressed in relation to extraterritorial surveillance and the interception of communications. 32. Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires each State party to respect and ensure to all persons within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 31, affirmed that States parties are required by article 2, paragraph 1, 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.”26 This extends to persons within their “authority”.27 33. The Human Rights Committee has been guided by the principle, as expressed even in its earliest jurisprudence, that a State may not avoid its international human rights obligations by taking action outside its territory that it would be prohibited from taking “at home”.28 This position is consonant with the views of the International Court of Justice, which has affirmed that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is applicable in respect of acts done by a State “in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory”,29 as well as articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The notions of “power” and ”effective control” are indicators of whether a State is exercising “jurisdiction” or governmental powers, the abuse of which human rights protections are intended to constrain. A State cannot avoid its human rights responsibilities simply by refraining from bringing those powers within the bounds of law. To conclude otherwise would not only undermine the universality and essence of the rights protected by international human rights law, but may also create structural incentives for States to outsource surveillance to each other. 34. It follows that digital surveillance therefore may engage a State’s human rights obligations if that surveillance involves the State’s exercise of power or effective control in 26 27 28 29 CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para. 10. See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/36/40), annex XIX, para. 12.2; see also annex XX. See also CCPR/CO/78/ISR, para. 11; CCPR/CO/72/NET, para. 8; CCPR/CO/81/BEL, para. 6; and Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Coard et al. v. the United States, case No. 10.951, Report No. 109/99, 29 September 1999, paras. 37, 39, 41 and 43. See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-sixth Session (see footnote 27), annex XIX, paras. 12.2-12.3, and annex XX, para. 10.3. Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, of 9 July 2004 (A/ES-10/273 and Corr.1), paras. 107111. See also International Court of Justice, case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), judgment, 2005, p. 168. 11