A/HRC/43/35 with its obligations under international human rights law,100 even when the detention occurs extraterritorially. 101 The International Court of Justice has accepted, in the context of applicable international humanitarian law and international human rights law obligations, that when an armed group that is completely dependent on a State conducts detention, among other actions, in armed conflict occurring outside the territory of that State, such conduct is imputable to the State.102 Such cases raise concerns for the respect of human rights and in particular the right to a remedy if the State does not acknowledge its obligations and there is difficulty establishing that the detaining authority is in fact acting on its behalf. 32. States also have the obligation to respect and ensure the detainees’ rights, even while they are held by a third party outside its territory, whenever the detainees are subject to its jurisdiction, that is, when they are within its power or effective control.103 This is the case when the State occupies or otherwise holds overall effective control over the foreign territory where the detention occurs. 104 The State is also responsible when it exercises control or authority over the detainees through a non-State actor detaining on the State’s instructions, or under its direction or control, thus functioning as its agent.105 Similarly, in the context of an armed conflict, the State bears responsibility for detention by an armed group and for its related violations of international law if the group is under its effective control.106 According to the Human Rights Committee, even when agents of a territorial State implement detention, a facilitating State may also have jurisdiction (alongside that of the territorial State) if it exercises significant levels of control and influence over the detention facility, such as control over its establishment, funding and operation. 107 33. When extraterritorial detention is carried out by third parties that are not agents of the State and in locations where it does not appear to have jurisdiction, the State may nevertheless bear responsibility if it assists the detaining party in subjecting detainees to arbitrary or unlawful detention or ill-treatment. It has been advanced that such responsibility arises directly from international human rights law, not only when a State transfers a specific detainee from its jurisdiction in breach of non-refoulement, but also when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the rights of detainees generally are being or will be violated, and the State nevertheless provides a detaining authority with technical or financial support, intelligence, equipment or other assistance that is connected to the subsequent violation, thereby contributing substantially to it.108 Indeed, the provision of such assistance may constitute a violation of the State’s obligation to ensure that activities undertaken in its jurisdiction that have a direct and reasonably foreseeable impact on the rights of detainees located outside its territory will be consistent with international human rights law.109 34. The obligation that international humanitarian law imposes on States to respect and ensure respect for the Geneva Conventions implies that they may not knowingly assist in violations of international humanitarian law by a State or non-State party to an armed conflict. 110 This obligation further imposes a positive duty on States to do everything reasonably in their power to stop ongoing international humanitarian law violations and to 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35, para. 8. Ibid., para. 63; and general comment No. 36, para. 63. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, paras. 391–393. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31, para. 10. Ibid., general comment No. 36, para. 63; European Court of Human Rights, Al-Skeini and others v. United Kingdom (application No. 55721/07), 7 July 2011, para. 142. Responsibility of States, art. 8. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, para. 400. CCPR/C/AUS/CO/6, para. 35. Miles Jackson, “Freeing Soering: the ECHR, State complicity in torture and jurisdiction”, European Journal of International Law, vol. 27, No. 3 (August 2016); Magdalena Pacholska, Complicity and the Law of International Organizations (Edward Elgar, 2020), p. 251. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36, paras. 22 and 63. ICRC, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, paras. 154 and 158; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, para. 220.