The ACJ notes further the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law as adopted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005. The Basic Principles recognise the State obligation to ensure respect for and to implement international human rights law and require that remedies be adequate, available, prompt, effective and appropriate. The obligation to provide remedies has also been the subject of comment by UN treaty bodies. For example, with regard to Article 2(3) of the ICCPR, which requires States Parties to provide effective remedies for breaches of Covenant rights, the UNHRC has stated that a State has an obligation to investigate and provide a means of redress for human rights violations by private actors, and furthermore, that a failure to do so would give rise to a violation by a States Party for failing to fulfil its Covenant obligations.11 What are the State obligations to regulate transnational corporations with regard to human rights violations occurring outside its territorial jurisdiction? Extra-territorial jurisdiction refers to the capacity of a State to apply its laws to activities occurring beyond its territorial borders. Given the absence of effective international regulation and the difficulties often faced by host countries in regulating the activities of TNCs, the ACJ notes that home States may often be in a better position that host States to impose regulations on the conduct of TNCs, and that this can occur through the exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction.12 Whether a State is in a better position to regulate however does not, in and of itself, mean that the State is obliged to do so. Certain international human rights instruments do require the imposition of extra-territorial jurisdiction for specified offences, (see below). In such situations, a State Party will be required to act. In the absence of such a requirement, a State may exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction in the circumstances outlined below. Criminal Jurisdiction The obligation on States to impose extra-territorial jurisdiction for human rights violations that constitute criminal conduct is clear in situations where relevant international instruments impose obligations to do so. International laws dealing with torture and with enforced disappearances for example require State Parties to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction. Similarly, certain crimes in and of themselves give rise to universal jurisdiction, for example, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. 13 In the absence of such a requirement, a State may legislate, but is not required to do so, in relation to criminal conduct occurring outside its territory when: • the offender is a national of the State; • the victim is a national of the state; and • (possibly more controversially) the offence affects the security of the State. The exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction however must meet the test of “reasonableness”. 11 General Comment No 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, Human Rights Committee, 80th session, 2187th mtg, [8], UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (2004). 12 Clough, J. 'Corporate Criminal Liability for Human Rights Abuses', Faculty Workshop, for the Frederick K Cox International Law Centre, Case Western Reserve University Law School, Cleveland, Ohio, October 2003 13 Brownlie. Principles of Public International Law. Oxford. 1990. p. 300 – 305. -9-