A/HRC/36/44 particular relevance in international environmental law33 and may be deemed relevant to the field of protection of human rights. 34 37. Further, such arguments in favour of extraterritorial obligations under human rights treaties are fully consistent with the actual practice of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In its general comment No. 8 (1997), on the relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights, the Committee set out certain obligations borne by parties responsible for the imposition, maintenance or implementation of the sanctions, whether it be the international community, an international or regional organization, or a State or group of States. Among these obligations flowing from the recognition of economic, social and cultural human rights, the Committee identified the obligation to respond to any disproportionate suffering experienced by vulnerable groups within the targeted country. 38. In the same general comment, the Committee expressed the view that, when an external party took upon itself even partial responsibility for the situation within a country, it also unavoidably assumed a responsibility to do all within its power to protect the economic, social and cultural rights of the affected population. The Special Rapporteur believes that there lies the crux of the matter: notwithstanding the responsibility of the targeted State to do its utmost to protect its own population, a State imposing sanctions, insofar as it practically assumes even partial responsibility for the situation within the targeted country, is also ipso facto under an obligation to protect the economic, social and cultural rights of the affected population. 39. Other findings of the Committee point in the same direction. In its general comment No. 14 (2000) on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the Committee emphasized that States parties should refrain at all times from imposing embargoes or similar measures restricting the supply of another State with adequate medicines and medical equipment. This clear position by the Committee, it has been noted, may be interpreted as an implicit recognition of extraterritorial human rights obligations in the area of economic, social and cultural rights. 35 40. It should be added that, as a matter of principle, there is no apparent reason to exclude the applicability of the general principles of State responsibility (and/or the responsibility of international organizations, as the case may be) in cases of damage caused to a third country by the application of sanctions imposed by source States (or international organizations). The basic principle enunciated in article 1 of the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts (comprising text adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001), according to which every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State, should be deemed to apply equally to wrongful acts of a State entailing damages to human rights of persons or populations of other countries. In relation to the international responsibility of a State for unlawful acts, it has even been observed that a State is under a duty to control the activities of private persons within its State territory, and that the duty is no less applicable where the harm is caused to persons or other legal interests within the territory of another State. 36 Arguably, the same duty shall apply a fortiori to unilateral sanctions that are directly attributable to the 33 34 35 36 As noted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comment No. 24 (2017) on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities. See N. Vennemann, “Application of international human rights conventions to transboundary State acts”, in R. M. Bratspies and R.A. Miller, eds., Transboundary Harm in International Law, Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 295-307; De Schutter and others, “Commentary to the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 34 (2012), p. 1084; L. Bartels, “The EU’s human rights obligations in relation to policies with extraterritorial effects”, European Journal of International Law, vol. 25 (2014), pp. 1081-1083. F. Coomans, “The extraterritorial scope of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, p. 12. I. Brownlie, System of the Law of Nations. State Responsibility (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1983), p. 165. 11