Violations by State officials and agents Officials and agents of a country may commit human rights violations in another country but outside the first country’s diplomatic mission. They remain State officials and they may be acting on behalf of their own country but their actions occur on the territory of another country. They could be diplomats or visiting officials or military personnel. The jurisdiction of some NHRIs is defined not by location of the violation but the nature of the alleged perpetrator. Their laws provide for cases to be taken against State officials and agents. Those NHRIs can interpret this mandate as enabling them to take complaints against State officials wherever the alleged violation occurs. So far as diplomats are concerned and others with similar immunity, the position is the same as in relation to violations within diplomatic missions. The NHRI in the country where the violation occurred would not have jurisdiction due to the immunity and so the NHRI of the home country must be able to act or the victim would have no remedy and there would be no accountability. Military personnel have committed some of the most serious violations under international law – war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. They are rarely held accountable either in their home country or in the country where the violation occurred. They may even have immunity from prosecution in the country where the violation occurred because of a bi-lateral force deployment agreement with the home country. NHRIs in countries in conflict have often been willing to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity but their findings are generally dismissed by the alleged perpetrator’s home country and then there is no accountability. The home country’s NHRI can play an essential role in investigating cases and exposing violations by its country’s military personnel in another country. Examples provided by NHRIs acting on extra-territorial human rights cases involving state officials and agents of the NHRI’s State Australian Human Rights Commission The Commission has conducted an inquiry into three complaints arising from the practice of the Australian Government of sending to Nauru families with young children who arrived in Australia seeking asylum.11 The Government challenged the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Commission found, “Australia has human rights obligations under the ICCPR and the CRC outside of its territory when it is exercising ‘effective control’ over people or territory. The Commission has jurisdiction to inquire into allegations that the Commonwealth has acted in a way that is inconsistent with or contrary to Australia’s obligations under the ICCPR (and certain other human rights instruments), including where the relevant acts occurred outside of Australia’s territory.” 12 Bahrain National Institution for Human Rights The Guide to Receiving Complaints and Providing Legal Assistance Related to Human Rights indicated in its second section, which relates to jurisdiction, that the Institution has jurisdiction to consider the following complaints: “Individual or collective complaints whose subject matter includes a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, provided that it occurred by an official body, or is related to its occurrence, within the territorial borders of the Kingdom of Bahrain, or outside it, whenever the body that committed the violation is an official body affiliated with the Kingdom.” 14 National action on international issues