A/HRC/13/42* page 21 on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, recognized that the jurisdiction of States is primarily territorial, but concluded that the Covenant extends to “acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside of its own territory”.34 An excessively literal reading of article 2, paragraph 1 of the Covenant would defeat the very purpose of the Covenant.35 As far as the Convention against Torture is concerned, article 2, paragraph 1, and article16, paragraph 1, refer to each State party’s obligation to prevent acts of torture “in any territory under its jurisdiction”. 38. The removal of a person to a State for the purpose of holding that person in secret detention, or the exclusion of the possibility of review by domestic courts of the sending State, can never be considered compatible with the obligation laid down in article 2, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has dismissed this practice of “reverse diplomatic assurances”, in which the sending Government seeks assurances that the person handed over will be deprived of liberty, even though there are no criminal charges against him and no other recognizable legal basis for detention, as being at variance with international law.36 In its opinion No. 11/2007,37 the Working Group, concurring with the view of the Human Rights Committee expressed in its general comment No. 31, declared the Government of Afghanistan responsible for the arbitrary detention of an individual who was being detained at Bagram Airbase, under the control of the United States of America, but on Afghan soil with the knowledge of Afghan authorities. 39. Similarly, the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment not only expressly bans torture, but in its article 4, paragraph 1, it also implicitly prohibits complicity in acts of torture, as it requires each State party to ensure that all acts of torture, including those acts by any person that constitute complicity or participation in torture, are criminal offences under its criminal law. This approach has been supported by the Committee against Torture in its jurisprudence.38 In particular, the Committee considered complicity to include acts that amount to instigation, incitement, superior order and instruction, consent, acquiescence and concealment.39 against Torture on the second periodic report of the United States of America (CAT/C/USA/CO/2), paras. 14 - 15. 34 Advisory opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (9 July 2004), para. 111. 35 Manfred Nowak, United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. CCPR Commentary, 2nd revised ed. 2005, pp 43-44. 36 A/HRC/4/40, para. 57. 37 A/HRC/7/4/Add.1. 38 CAT/C/SR.105. 39 Ibid.; see also Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-eight Session, supplement No. 44 (A/48/44).