CATAN AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA JUDGMENT 39 unlawful military action, a Contracting State exercises effective control of an area outside that national territory. The obligation to secure, in such an area, the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention, derives from the fact of such control, whether it be exercised directly, through the Contracting State’s own armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration (Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 62, Series A no. 310; Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 76, ECHR 2001-IV, Banković, cited above, § 70; Ilaşcu, cited above, §§ 314-316; Loizidou (merits), cited above, § 52; Al-Skeini, cited above, § 138). Where the fact of such domination over the territory is established, it is not necessary to determine whether the Contracting State exercises detailed control over the policies and actions of the subordinate local administration. The fact that the local administration survives as a result of the Contracting State’s military and other support entails that State’s responsibility for its policies and actions. The controlling State has the responsibility under Article 1 to secure, within the area under its control, the entire range of substantive rights set out in the Convention and those additional Protocols which it has ratified. It will be liable for any violations of those rights (Cyprus v. Turkey, cited above, §§ 76-77; Al-Skeini, cited above, § 138). 107. It is a question of fact whether a Contracting State exercises effective control over an area outside its own territory. In determining whether effective control exists, the Court will primarily have reference to the strength of the State’s military presence in the area (see Loizidou (merits), cited above, §§ 16 and 56; Ilaşcu, cited above, § 387). Other indicators may also be relevant, such as the extent to which its military, economic and political support for the local subordinate administration provides it with influence and control over the region (see Ilaşcu, cited above, §§ 388-394; Al-Skeini, cited above, § 139). 2. Application of these principles to the facts of the case 108. It is convenient at this point to recall the central facts of the case. The applicants are children and parents from the Moldovan community in Transdniestria who complain about the effects on their and their children’s education and family lives brought about by the language policy of the separatist authorities. The core of their complaints relate to actions taken by the “MRT” authorities in 2002 and 2004, to enforce decisions adopted some years previously, forbidding the use of the Latin alphabet in schools and requiring all schools to register and start using an “MRT”-approved curriculum and the Cyrillic script. Thus, on 22 August 2002 “MRT” police forcibly evicted the pupils and teachers from the Ştefan cel Mare School in Grigoriopol. The school was not allowed to reopen in the same building and subsequently transferred to premises some 20 kilometres away, in Moldovan-controlled territory. The children and staff were evicted from the Evrica School in Rîbniţa in July 2004. The same month, the Alexandru cel