A/HRC/2/7 page 27 Committee on the second periodic report of Israel (CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2), in Report of the Human Rights Committee, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/58/40), vol. I, p. 64, para. 11. 10 ICCPR, art. 4, para. 1; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 29 (2001), para. 3. 11 ICCPR, art. 4, para. 2. 12 CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para. 71. 13 A/58/40, vol. I, p. 64,, para. 12. The Human Rights Committee has expressed concern that the article 9 reservation is broader than is permissible under article 4 of ICCPR, and that Israeli policies related to the state of emergency appear to have unofficially derogated from additional provisions of ICCPR (ibid). 14 See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), general comment No. 14 (2000), paras. 28-29. 15 Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), I.C.J. Reports 2005, paras. 216-20, 345(3); Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, I.C.J. Reports 2004, para. 106; and Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, I.C.J. Reports 1996, para. 25. Although the Court concluded in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion that “[t]he test of what constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life ,,, falls to determined by the applicable lex specialis, namely, the law applicable in armed conflict”, more recently, in Congo v. Uganda, it found independent violations of human rights law during armed conflict without applying the lex specialis principle (paras. 216-219). 16 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant (art. 2). 17 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion, para. 111. The Court reached the same conclusion with regard to the applicability of CRC. Ibid., para. 113. In Congo v. Uganda, para. 220, the Court concluded that Uganda was internationally responsible for its violations of international human rights law committed in both occupied and unoccupied sections of the Congo. The Human Rights Committee has clarified 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”. General comment No. 31 (2004), para. 10. See also Human Rights Committee, Lopez v. Uruguay, communication No. 52/1979 (CCPR/C/OP/1), paras. 12.1-12.3 (1984). 18 However, the respective committees have stressed the relevance of jurisdiction as a criterion to determine the scope of States parties’ obligations. See e.g. CESCR, general comment No. 4 (1991), para. 13 and No. 14 (2000), paras. 12, 51.