Investigation and resolution of extra-territorial human rights cases NHRIs do not have a general jurisdiction to investigate and seek to resolve individual cases of human rights violation arising outside the territory of their own country. Many, however, have jurisdiction, explicitly set out or arising by interpretation, that enables them to act on some categories of extra-territorial complaint. Violations within diplomatic missions Most NHRIs interpret their jurisdiction as extending to cases of human rights violation occurring within their country’s diplomatic missions in other countries. In international law a diplomatic mission is considered to be the territory of the State represented by the mission. So human rights violations that occur within the home State’s diplomatic mission are not seen as extra-territorial but as occurring within the home State’s territory and the NHRI can exercise jurisdiction in relation to that case on that basis. There is no restriction on the categories of violation but cases most commonly concern violations in the context of employment, so discrimination, harassment, unfair or unequal treatment, or victimisation. The extension of an NHRI’s jurisdiction to its country’s diplomatic missions is necessary because, without that, human rights protection would not extend to persons within the diplomatic mission. Diplomatic missions and diplomats have immunity from the laws and courts of the country to which they are accredited. They are not subject to that country’s NHRI. If a victim of a human rights violation perpetrated within a diplomatic mission cannot complain to the NHRI of the home country of the mission, then the victim would have no remedy and no protection and the perpetrator would not be held accountable. International human rights law recognises the entitlement of every victim of human rights violation to a remedy and the requirement that perpetrators of human rights violations be held accountable. 12 National action on international issues