A/80/302 48. Human rights monitoring is effective when it includes complaint mechanisms that allow individuals to report alleged breaches of their human rights in the context of externalization measures and to access justice. The inclusion of complaint mechanisms facilitates monitoring the human rights impact of the measures and enables follow-up on breaches.98 V. Responsibility for violations of human rights of migrants in the context of externalization 49. While externalization policies and measures may lead to or facilitate human rights violations (see sect. III above), establishing legal responsibility for such violations and ensuring remedies for victims are challenging owing to the core features of externalization, namely, lack of transparency and democratic oversight, the frequently informal character of the arrangements and the involvement of multiple States and non-State actors (see sect. IV). In the present section, the Special Rapporteur discusses how responsibility for violations in the context of externalization can be established by addressing two key challenges: the extraterritorial element of externalization and the involvement of multiple actors. 99 A. Extraterritorial jurisdiction 50. Under international human rights law, States’ obligations to respect and ensure human rights can extend beyond their territory. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art. 2 (1)), States undertake to respect and ensure rights to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction. This provision is interpreted disjunctively to require that States protect the rights of people subject to their jurisdiction even if they are not situated within their territory. 100 51. States exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction whenever they exercise power or “effective control” over people or places outside their territories. 101 In J.H.A. v. Spain, for example, the Committee against Torture concluded that Spain exercised jurisdiction over migrants and asylum-seekers on a cargo vessel that it had rescued in international waters and then towed to Mauritania, including throughout their initial screening in Mauritania and the subsequent repatriation process. 102 52. Extraterritorial jurisdiction can be established on the basis of cumulative factors showing control and influence over people and places. In M.I. et al v. Australia and Nabhari v. Australia, the Human Rights Committee considered the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the context of the offshore detention of migrants by Australia in a regional processing centre in Nauru (see para. 13 above). The Committee concluded that the authors were under the jurisdiction of Australia while in Nauru, because Australia exercised various elements of effective control over the detention operations. In particular, Australia had arranged for the construction and __________________ 98 99 100 101 102 18/23 European Ombudsman decision in case OI/2/2024/MHZ, para. 42. Submission by Madeline Gleeson. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 10. Ibid. Committee against Torture, J.H.A. v. Spain (CAT/C/41/D/323/2007), para. 8.2 and Fatou Sonko v. Spain (CAT/C/47/D/368/2008) para. 10.3. The case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 27765/09, Judgment, 23 February 2012) is another example where the respondent State exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction based on “control over people”, in this instance a group of migrants who were subj ect to a pushback operation on the high seas to Libya. 25-12609