Extending the Jurisdictional Limitation of the ICCPR : “Virtual Control Test” A daunting task that awaits those wishing to extend Article 2 (1) of the ICCPR to account for states extra-territorial surveillance scheme is attributing such interception of foreign communications on a surveilling state. As the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights suggests article 2 (1) extends to “anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of the State Party.” Therefore, if one is relying on the power or effective control test, extra-territorial surveillance should amount as a virtual control and privacy infringement of a non-citizen situated outside one’s territory. Given the principle …show more content…
Hence, if the interference physically occurs within a specific jurisdiction but its effects are felt outside that territory by a particular foreigner such practice should bring forth the extra-territorial obligation of states found within Article 17 of the ICCPR. Regional Courts Experience on Extra-territorial privacy infringements When tracking the evolution of case laws presented at both the European Court of Human Rights or the Inter-American Court, a challenging task encountered has also been delineating the term “jurisdiction of a state” to attribute extra-territorial surveillance to them. Looking at the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights through Article 1, we tend to recognize that states “shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction’ the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention”. Through Loizidou v. Turkey and Cyprus v. Turkey respectively the ECHR has asserted that a state