The children (and wives) of foreign ISIS fighters 95 of this and all the other provisions. Consequently, States must take effective measures, ie repatriation, to prevent the recruitment and use of children by non-State armed groups, wherever they are located.133 A final consideration concerning the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties is needed given the increasingly likely transfer of prisoners, not repatriated by their States of origin, from Syria to Iraq. This scenario entails that the decision made by the States of nationality of FTFs and their family members will represent the cause for further ‘foreseeable violations’.134 Thus, the inaction of States of nationality will allegedly result in breaches of human rights in another jurisdiction, in violation of the principle of non-refoulement,135 and of international humanitarian law, which prohibits transfer of detainees to countries where they could suffer from torture and ill-treatment.136 4. Concluding remarks As emerged from the analysis carried out in the present article, international law does not impose on States of nationality a straightforward obligation to repatriate the family members of FTFs. Nonetheless, several relevant commitments established under the different fields of interna- 133 TB Begle, ‘The Extraterritorial Obligation to Prevent the Use of Child Soldiers’ (2012) 27 American Universities Intl L Rev 613, 630-633. 134 On the concept of ‘foreseeability’ as a condition to establish State’s responsibility for the impairment of human rights outside its territory see O De Schutter et al, ‘Commentary to the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (2012) 34 Human Rights Quarterly 1084, 1113-1115; Miller (n 115) 1234-1235. 135 On the principle of non-refoulement under international human rights law see E Lauterpacht, D Bethlehem, ‘The Scope and Content of the Principle of NonRefoulement: Opinion’, in E Feller, V Turk, F Nicholson (eds) Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection (CUP 2003) 87; ICRC, ‘Note on Migration and the Principle of Non-Refoulement’ (2017) 99 Intl Rev Red Cross 345, 347-349. 136 In NIACs the fundamental protections contained in Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions are to be understood as prohibiting parties to the conflict from transferring persons in their power to another authority when those persons would be in danger of suffering a violation of those fundamental rights upon transfer. C Droege, ‘Transfers of Detainees: Legal Framework, Non-Refoulement and Contemporary Challenges’ 90 (2008) Intl Rev Red Cross 675.