WIEDER AND GUARNIERI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT fact that the state as the politically legitimated and accountable actor is bound by fundamental rights ensures that fundamental rights protection keeps up with an international extension of state activities. The European Convention on Human Rights, which constitutes a guideline for the interpretation of fundamental rights, also suggests such an understanding of the scope of the fundamental rights of the Basic Law (...). It has not yet been comprehensively determined to what extent its guarantees apply to actions of the Contracting Parties outside of their own territory. The European Court of Human Rights is mainly guided by the criterion of whether a state exercises effective control over an area outside its own territory; on this basis, it has in many cases affirmed the applicability of Convention rights abroad (cf. in summary ECtHR [GC], Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 July 2011, no. 55721/07, §§ 132 et seq . with further references; cf. also Aust, Archiv des Völkerrechts 52 <2014>, p. 375 <394 et seq. > with further references). However, there has been no final determination as to whether protection is afforded against surveillance measures carried out by Contracting Parties in other states.” 37. The Constitutional Court noted that at the time the cases of Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom and Centrum för Rättvisa v. Sweden were pending before the Grand Chamber. It continued: “Irrespective of the outcome of these proceedings, the European Convention on Human Rights does not stand in the way of the applicability of German fundamental rights abroad. This is because the Convention is an international treaty with its own separate scope of application; no direct inferences can be drawn from it with regard to the scope of fundamental rights protection under the Basic Law. In any case, the Convention does not rule out further-reaching fundamental rights protection by the Contracting Parties (Art. 53 ECHR).” 38. With regard to technological developments, it noted that: “The developments in information technology have led to a situation where data is shared through global channels, where it is randomly routed via satellite or cable according to technical criteria that have no regard to national borders (...). This makes it possible to intercept a considerable number of foreign communications from within Germany. Moreover, communication in society has become increasingly international. In view of cross-border services, exchanges – both within states and across national borders – between citizens as fundamental rights holders mainly rely on telecommunications services that do not differentiate between domestic and foreign communications (...). Given that, under the current realities of information technology, actions and communication relations of all kinds have become increasingly digital, and given the constant increase in data processing capacities, the possibilities for conducting telecommunications surveillance extend to broad areas of all of civil society, even outside a state’s own jurisdiction – just as domestic communications are also subject to surveillance by other states (...). In light of such developments, an understanding of fundamental rights according to which their protection ended at national borders would deprive holders of fundamental rights of all protection and would result in fundamental rights protection lagging behind the realities of internationalisation ([...]). It could undermine fundamental rights protection in an increasingly important area that is characterised by intrusive state action and where – in the field of security law – fundamental rights are especially significant in general. By contrast, in binding the state as the relevant actor, Art. 1(3) 13