40 CATAN AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA JUDGMENT Bun School in Tighina was threatened with closure and disconnected from electricity and water supplies. Both schools were required to move to less convenient and less well equipped premises in their home towns at the start of the following academic year. (a) The Republic of Moldova 109. The Court must first determine whether the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova. In this connection, it notes that all three schools have at all times been situated within Moldovan territory. It is true, as all the parties accept, that Moldova has no authority over the part of its territory to the east of the River Dniester, which is controlled by the “MRT”. Nonetheless, in the Ilaşcu judgment, cited above, the Court held that individuals detained in Transdniestria fell within Moldova’s jurisdiction because Moldova was the territorial State, even though it did not have effective control over the Transdniestrian region. Moldova’s obligation under Article 1 of the Convention, to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the [Convention] rights and freedoms”, was, however, limited in the circumstances to a positive obligation to take the diplomatic, economic, judicial or other measures that were both in its power to take and in accordance with international law (see Ilaşcu, cited above, § 331). The Court reached a similar conclusion in Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia, no. 23687/05, §§ 105-111, 15 November 2011. 110. The Court sees no ground on which to distinguish the present case. Although Moldova has no effective control over the acts of the “MRT” in Transdniestria, the fact that the region is recognised under public international law as part of Moldova’s territory gives rise to an obligation, under Article 1 of the Convention, to use all legal and diplomatic means available to it to continue to guarantee the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention to those living there (see Ilaşcu, cited above, § 333). The Court will consider below whether Moldova has satisfied this positive obligation. (b) The Russian Federation 111. The Court must next determine whether or not the applicants also fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. It takes as its starting point the fact that the key events in this case, namely the forcible eviction of the schools, took place between August 2002 and July 2004. Those two years fell within the period of time considered by the Court in the Ilaşcu judgment (cited above), which was delivered in July 2004. It is true that in that case the Court considered it relevant to the question whether Russian jurisdiction was engaged that Mr Ilaşcu, Mr Leşco, Mr Ivanţoc and Mr Petrov-Popa had been arrested, detained and ill-treated by soldiers of the 14th Army in 1992, who then transferred them to “MRT” custody. The Court considered that these acts, although they took place before Russia