E/CN.4/2006/120 page 28 Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: “A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions”, The American University Journal of International Law and Policy, vol. 2, No. 2 (Fall 1987), pp. 419-431. 9 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para. 10. 10 International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (9 July 2004). 11 Ibid., para. 111. The ICJ reached the same conclusion with regard to the applicability of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (para. 113). As far as the Convention against Torture is concerned, articles 2 (1) and 16 (1) refer to each State party’s obligation to prevent acts of torture “in any territory under its jurisdiction”. Accordingly, the territorial applicability of the Convention to United States activities at Guantánamo Bay is even less disputable than the territorial applicability of ICCPR, which refers (art. 2 (1)) to “all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction”. 12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 29 (2001), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, para. 3. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid., paras. 15-16. 15 International Court of Justice, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226, at p. 240 (8 July 1996), para. 25. 16 International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (9 July 2004), para. 106. 17 The Commission on Human Rights resolutions governing the Working Group mandate it “to investigate cases of detention imposed arbitrarily or otherwise inconsistently with the relevant international standards” (1991/42, 1997/50 and 2003/31). In its report to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-ninth session, the Working Group gave a Legal Opinion regarding deprivation of liberty of persons detained at Guantánamo Bay (E/CN.4/2003/8, paras. 61 to 64). On 8 May 2003, the Working Group issued its Opinion No. 5/2003 concerning the situation of four men held at Guantánamo Bay, finding that it constituted arbitrary detention. The Working Group also reflected developments in United States litigation relating to Guantánamo Bay in its report to the Commission in 2005 (E/CN.4/2005/6, para. 64). 18 This Military Order has been complemented by several subsequent Military Commissions Orders, i.a. Military Commission Order No. 1 of 21 March 2002, which was superseded