ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 21 entitlements, she would be better advised to apply to the Russian or Ukrainian authorities. 54. In the applicant’s submission, the argument that Latvia was not a successor State to the former USSR was immaterial in the present case; such an argument could only be used to justify a total refusal to take into account employment during the Soviet period. However, she had never alleged a violation of a pecuniary right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone. Her complaint concerned a difference in treatment prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention; if the State concerned decided, despite everything, to pay retirement pensions in respect of periods of employment outside national territory, it should do so without any discrimination. That would be logical, since by ratifying the Convention, Latvia had undertaken to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of the Convention. Latvia thus bore full responsibility. 55. As with the previous objection, the Court considers at the outset that this plea of inadmissibility has been lodged out of time (see paragraph 49 above). Even supposing that that were not the case, it must in any event be dismissed for the following reasons. 56. The Court reiterates that the concept of “jurisdiction” for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention reflects the term’s meaning in public international law and is closely linked to that of the international responsibility of the State concerned (see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 312, ECHR 2004-VII). Such responsibility may arise for the acts of all State organs, whether they belong to the legislature, the executive or the judiciary (see, mutatis mutandis, Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, § 49, Series A no. 44, and Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 46, ECHR 1999-VII). Furthermore, the fact that the factual or legal situation complained of by the applicant is partly attributable to another State is not in itself decisive for the determination of the respondent State’s “jurisdiction”. The argument advanced by the Government equates the determination of whether an individual falls “within the jurisdiction” of a Contracting State with the question whether the individual can be considered to be the victim of a violation by that State of a right guaranteed by the Convention. These are, however, separate and distinct admissibility conditions (see Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII). 57. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant complained about a measure taken in respect of her by a Latvian public authority – the State Social-Insurance Agency – refusing her part of the pecuniary benefit she had intended to draw from a Law passed by the Latvian Parliament. The dispute raised by the applicant in respect of that measure was examined by the three levels of Latvian courts, which delivered binding decisions on the