A/HRC/4/WG.3/6 page 30 effective control was obtained ….”84 These comments are directly relevant only to States parties of ICCPR. However, since they tackle the nature of States parties obligations under a human rights treaty they seem to also clarify the applicability, mutatis mutandis, of other human rights treaties to people under foreign occupation. Hence, States parties who occupy a territory are obliged to counter racism and xenophobia affecting all parts of the population under their control and bear full responsibility in this respect under the respective human rights treaties to which they are party. 95. People under foreign occupation are protected also by international humanitarian law. Article 2 of Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War stipulates that “the Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.” Article 4 states that, “Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.” Common article 3 to all four Geneva Conventions as well as Additional Protocols I relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts and II relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, contain provisions that establish the obligation of States parties to treat humanely all persons under their control and prohibit distinctions made on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria.85 All these instruments specify various specific minimum standards which must be respected by each party to a conflict.86 96. It is important to note that the protection extended to people under foreign occupation by international human rights law and international humanitarian law should be considered in an integrated way. General comment No. 31 of the Human Rights Committee rightly observes that: “While, in respect of certain Covenant rights, more specific rules of international humanitarian law may be especially relevant for the purposes of the interpretation of Covenant rights, both 84 See paras. 10-12. See also HRC general comment No. 15 (1986) on the position of aliens under the Convention that stresses that the enjoyment of Covenant rights is not limited to citizens of States parties but must also be available to all individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, such as asylum-seekers, refugees, migrant workers and other persons, who may find themselves in the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of the State Party. 85 86 Protocol I, articles 9, para. 1 and 75, para. 1; Protocol II, article 2. Although common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions specifies that the conflict must be of a non-international character, the International Court of Justice in the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) ruled that article 3 applies as well to international armed conflicts. ICJ reports (1986), para. 218.