ABSTRACT

The Committee is only competent to consider a communication from an individual against a State Party if he is 'subject to its jurisdiction'. Sometimes the Committee has been generous to the author in its interpretation of the concept of the individual being subject to the State Party's jurisdiction. A very interesting plea of inadmissibility ratione loci was made by the State Party concerned in the case of Kindler v Canada which involved the extradition of a national of the USA from Canada to the USA in circumstances in which he would be subjected to the death penalty. In Cyprus v Turkey, the Turkish Government argued that the applications ought to be declared inadmissible ratione loci since they related to alleged violations on Cyprus, because the European Commission of Human Rights was only competent to examine acts committed in the national territory of the State concerned.