113 《国家对国际不法行为的责任》，第 16 条；《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》的适用，第 420 段。越低。114 在拘留国违反强制性规范的情况下，例如，有系统地对被拘留者实施任意拘留或酷刑，或侵犯他们基本的公正审判权，115 即使无法证明援助国对侵犯行为其实或几乎肯定知情，也可以基于知情推定，认为援助国对援助和协助实施国际不法行为负有责任。116 在向实施拘留的非国家行为体提供援助并满足上述条件时，如果该行为体的行为可以归因于一国，则同样可能产生国际责任(见第 30 段)。
35. Moreover, it is a general rule of customary international law that a State is internationally responsible for knowingly aiding and assisting another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act, when the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by the assisting State itself.113 In assessing whether a State incurs responsibility for facilitating the violations by another State against persons detained outside the assisting State’s territory, a number of factors may be relevant, including the significance of the contribution of assistance – which can include the provision of intelligence, equipment, financing or technical support – towards a violation; the opposability of the violated international obligation to the assisting State; and the assisting State’s knowledge of the circumstances of the assisted violation, with that State being, at minimum, aware that the support provided would facilitate the commission of a violation. However, it has been advanced that the relevance of this last factor may depend on the gravity of the assisted violation: the more serious the violation, the lower the required knowledge threshold that would be appropriate. 114 In cases when the detaining State breaches a peremptory norm, for example, by systematically subjecting detainees to arbitrary detention or torture or violating their fundamental fair trial rights, 115 an assisting State might be considered responsible for aiding and assisting in the commission of an international wrongful act even if it was not shown to have actual or near certain knowledge of the violation, on the basis instead of a presumption of knowledge.116 When assistance is provided to a non-State actor carrying out the detention and the aforementioned conditions have been met, international responsibility may likewise arise if that actor’s actions can be attributed to a State (see para. 30).