observer status before the Commission, the facts must have taken place on the territory of the Respondent State. This is the case because a priori, every State is under obligation to guarantee human rights protection within the confines of its territory. The Court has, therefore, consistently held that it has territorial jurisdiction in the light of this fact. In the instant Application, however, the Court has to decide whether, in certain circumstances, it may exercise territorial jurisdiction where the alleged violations occurred outside the territory of the Respondent State. 154. In Bernard Anbataayela Mornah v. Republic of Benin and Others, 14 the Court held that the Charter does not specify the territorial scope of its application and neither does the Protocol. The Court noted that the increasing extra-territorial undertakings of States and the erosion of the defence of sovereignty relating to human rights violations has resulted in changes to the classical notion of territorial jurisdiction. One such notable result is that “the obligation to protect or at least, not to violate human rights extends beyond the traditional confines of State territories.”15 155. The Court notes that a State’s jurisdiction may be exercised outside its territory since “in accordance with a well-established rule of international law of a customary character, the conduct of any organ of a State must be regarded as the act of that State”,16 whether that conduct took place within or outside its territory. 156. In this regard, the Court observes that this legal reality is reinforced by the fact that international human rights instruments are applicable to acts of a State acting in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory. 17 For example, as the ICJ has held 14 § 146. 15 § 149. 16 The matter of Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 242 § 213; Dispute relating to immunity from legal process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), p. 87, para. 62. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, p. 179 §§ 109. 17 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168 § 215. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the 37