MEDVEDYEV AND OTHERS v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 23 C. The Court’s assessment 1. Article 1 of the Convention 62. The Court considers that the first question to be decided in this case is whether the events in dispute, from the stopping of the Winner on the high seas and throughout the thirteen days of alleged deprivation of liberty until the ship reached Brest, brought the applicants within the jurisdiction of France for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of [the] Convention.” 63. Article 1 sets a limit, notably territorial, on the reach of the Convention. In particular, the engagement undertaken by a Contracting State is confined to “securing” (“reconnaître” in the French text) the listed rights and freedoms to persons within its own “jurisdiction”. Further, the Convention does not govern the actions of States not parties to it, nor does it purport to be a means of requiring the Contracting States to impose Convention standards on other States (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 86, Series A no. 161, and Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, § 66, ECHR 2001-XII). 64. In keeping with the essentially territorial notion of jurisdiction, the Court has accepted only in exceptional cases that acts of the Contracting States performed, or producing effects, outside their territories can constitute an exercise of jurisdiction by them for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (see Banković and Others, cited above, § 67, and Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 314, ECHR 2004-VII). In its first Loizidou judgment (preliminary objections), for example, the Court found that bearing in mind the object and purpose of the Convention, the responsibility of a Contracting Party might also arise when as a consequence of military action – whether lawful or unlawful – it exercised effective control of an area outside its national territory (see Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 62, Series A no. 310). This excluded situations, however, where – as in the Banković and Others case – what was at issue was an instantaneous extraterritorial act, as the provisions of Article 1 did not admit of a “cause and effect” notion of “jurisdiction” (cited above, § 75). 65. Additionally, the Court notes that other recognised instances of the extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction by a State include cases involving the activities of its diplomatic or consular agents abroad and on board aircraft and ships registered in, or flying the flag of, that State. In these specific situations, customary international law and treaty provisions have clearly