A/80/302 establishment of the centre in Nauru and directed or oversaw its operations, including security, cleaning, catering, recreational and educational services. 103 53. States may also exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction where they exercise control over situations or operations such as to affect an individual’s enjoyment of a right, such as the right to life, in a direct and reasonably foreseeable manner. 104 In A.S. et al. v. Italy, concerning a shipwreck that caused the death of around 200 persons, the Human Rights Committee found that Italy exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over the individuals on the vessel in distress because of a special relationship of dependency established between the individuals on the vessel in distress and Italy. This relationship comprised factual elements, such as the initial contact made by the vessel in distress with the Italian rescue centre, the proximity of an Italian vessel to the vessel in distress and the legal obligations of Italy under the international law of the sea. As a result, the individuals were directly affected by the decisions made by the Italian authorities in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable in the light of the relevant legal obligations of Italy. 105 B. Responsibility for human rights violations 54. Given the multitude of actors involved in externalization measures, the question arises as to who bears responsibility when a human rights violation occurs. In the present section, the Special Rapporteur outlines the basic rules under the law of international responsibility governing how a human rights violation can be attributed to States or international organizations. 106 These rules are enshrined principally in the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts 107 (chap. II) and the articles on the responsibility of international organizations 108 (chap. II), elaborated by the International Law Commission. 1. Attribution of conduct 55. Human rights violations occurring in the context of externalization measures can be attributed, in some instances, to a State or an international organization. In the case of States, attribution is most straightforward when the conduct in question is carried out by State organs exercising legislative, executive, judicial or other governmental functions. Under the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, however, a broader range of conduct can be attributed to a State. This includes conduct of persons or entities empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority; organs placed at a State’s disposal by another State, provided that they exercise governmental authority; individuals or groups acting under the direction or control of a State; or individuals or groups exercising elements of governmental authority in the absence of official authorities. Similarly, under the articles on the responsibility of international organizations, the conduct that is primarily attributable to an international organization is that of its organs or agents when acting in the performance of their functions. Attribution also extends to the conduct of State organs or the organs or agents of another international organization placed at its disposal, provided that the organization exercises effective control over the conduct in question. __________________ 103 104 105 106 107 108 25-12609 Human Rights Committee, M.I. et al. v. Australia, para. 9.9, and Human Rights Committee, Nabhari v. Australia (CCPR/C/142/D/3663/2019) para. 7.15. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2019), para. 63. Human Rights Committee, A.S. et al. v. Italy (CCPR/C/130/D/3042/2017), para. 7.8. A/HRC/37/50, para. 56. See General Assembly resolution 58/63, annex; A/74/83; and A/HRC/37/50, para. 56. See General Assembly resolution 66/100, annex. 19/23