CATAN AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA JUDGMENT 41 ratified the Convention on 5 May 1998, formed part of a continuous and uninterrupted chain of responsibility on the part of the Russian Federation for the detainees’ fate. The Court also found, as part of that chain of responsibility, that during the uprising in Transdniestria in 1991-1992, the authorities of the Russian Federation contributed both militarily and politically to the establishment of the separatist regime (see Ilaşcu, cited above, § 382). Furthermore, during the period between May 1998, when Russia ratified the Convention, and May 2004, when the Court adopted the judgment, the Court found that the “MRT” survived by virtue of the military, economic, financial and political support given to it by the Russian Federation and that it remained under the effective authority, or at the very least under the decisive influence, of Russia (Ilaşcu, cited above, § 392). The Court therefore concluded that the applicants came within the “jurisdiction” of the Russian Federation for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (Ilaşcu, cited above, §§ 393-394). 112. In these circumstances, where the Court has already concluded that the Russian Federation had jurisdiction over certain events in Transdniestria during the relevant period, it considers that the burden now lies on the Russian Government to establish that Russia did not exercise jurisdiction in relation to the events complained of by the present applicants. 113. The Russian Government deny that Russia exercised jurisdiction in Transdniestria during the relevant period. They emphasise, first, that the present case is clearly distinguishable from Ilaşcu, cited above, where the Court found that Russian soldiers had carried out the initial arrest and imprisonment of the applicants, and Al-Skeini, also cited above, where the Court found that the United Kingdom had jurisdiction in respect of Iraqi civilians killed in the course of security operations carried out by British soldiers. 114. The Court recalls that it has held that a State can, in certain exceptional circumstances, exercise jurisdiction extra-territorially through the assertion of authority and control by that State’s agents over an individual or individuals, as for example occurred in Al-Skeini (cited above, § 149). However, the Court has also held that a State can exercise jurisdiction extra-territorially when, as a consequence of lawful or unlawful military action, a Contracting State exercises effective control of an area outside that national territory (see paragraph 106 above). The Court accepts that there is no evidence of any direct involvement of Russian agents in the action taken against the applicants’ schools. However, it is the applicants’ submission that Russia had effective control over the “MRT” during the relevant period and the Court must establish whether or not this was the case. 115. The Government of the Russian Federation contend that the Court could only find that Russia was in effective control if it found that the “Government” of the “MRT” could be regarded as an organ of the Russian