Annex To The Report Of The Special Rapporteur On .

United NationsA/HRC/41/CRP.1Distr.: GeneralDate 17 June 2019Original: EnglishHuman Rights CouncilForty-first session24 June - 12 July 2019Agenda item 3Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,Political, economic, social and cultural rights,including the right to developmentAnnex to the Report of the Special Rapporteur onextrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions: Investigationinto the unlawful death of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi ***SummaryThe Secretariat has the honour to transmit to the Human Rights Council the Annex tothe report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, AgnesCallamard, submitted pursuant to Council resolution 35/15.In the present Annex to her report, the Special Rapporteur presents the full findingsand analysis of the international human rights inquiry that she conducted into the unlawfuldeath of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.*** The Annex is being circulated without formal editing, in the language of submission only.

A/HRC/41/CRP.1Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executionsContentsPage2Executive summary .4Introduction .8PART I. THE TIMELINE OF THE EXECUTION OF JAMAL KHASHOGGI .14Before the murder.14Planning and preparation .15The disappearance and murder of Jamal Khashoggi .20The Turkish authorities learn of Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance. .22The Saudi 15 member-team leaves Turkey .22Initial reactions and the beginning of Turkey’s investigative process .23Saudi Arabia’s repeated denials and scene clean up .25Turkish investigators enter the Consulate and the Residence .27Saudi Arabia’s admission and its arrests .29Some international reaction to the Saudi admission .30The Turkish investigators continues .31Indictments and trials in Saudi Arabia .32Other countries impose sanctions on Saudi officials .34Saudi Arabia trials .35Other Saudi measures taken .36PART II. THE EXECUTION OF MR. KHASHOGGI, STATE AND INDIVIDUALRESPONSIBILITIES .39The right to life .39Analysis of the facts of the execution of Mr. Khashoggi .40State responsibility for the execution of Mr. Khashoggi .43State responsibility for international wrongful acts .45Individual criminal responsibilities for the killing of Mr. Khashoggi .48PART III. INVESTIGATION INTO THE EXECUTION OF JAMALKHASHOGGI.55The standards: an overview .55Immunity, jurisdiction and access to the crime scene .57Saudi implementation of its duty to investigate .58Turkey’s implementation of its duty to investigate .61PART IV. RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND THE DUTY TO WARN .66International standards .66The responsibility to protect applied to the execution of Mr. Khashoggi .73The responsibility to protect and to warn following the execution of Mr. Khashoggi .76GE.18-20105

A/HRC/41/CRP.1GE.18-20105PART V. PROSECUTION, REMEDIES AND REPARATION.78Legal challenges .78Steps taken to date .80Remedies and reparations .83PART VI. INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY .86A follow-up criminal investigation of the execution of Mr. Khashoggi .87Universal jurisdiction .88Targeted and State sanctions .90Corporate social accountability .92Symbolic responses .93Support to Freedom of Expression in the Gulf region .93Re-enforcing the capacities of the UN to respond to acts of violence against, andkillings of, journalists, human rights defenders and other activists .94PART VII. RECOMMENDATIONS .973

A/HRC/41/CRP.1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYState Responsibilities1.Mr. Khashoggi’s killing constituted an extrajudicial killing for which the State of theKingdom of Saudi Arabia is responsible. His attempted kidnapping would also constitute aviolation under international human rights law. From the perspective of international humanrights law, State responsibility is not a question of, for example, which of the State officialsordered Mr. Khashoggi’s death; whether one or more ordered a kidnapping that was botchedand then became an accidental killing; or whether the officers acted on their own initiativeor ultra vires.2.The killing of Mr. Khashoggi further constituted a violation of the Vienna Conventionon Consular Relations (thereafter VCCR) and of the prohibition against the extra-territorialuse of force in time of peace (customary law and UN Charter). In killing a journalist, theState of Saudi Arabia also committed an act inconsistent with a core tenet of the UnitedNations, the protection of freedom of expression. As such, it can be credibly argued that itused force extra-territorially in a manner “inconsistent with the Purposes of the UnitedNations.”3.Further, the circumstances of the killing of Mr. Khashoggi may constitute an act oftorture under the terms of the Convention Against Torture, ratified by Saudi Arabia. Finally,the killing of Mr. Khashoggi may also constitute to this date an enforced disappearance sincethe location of his remains has not been established.Individual liability4.The Special Rapporteur has determined that there is credible evidence, warrantingfurther investigation of high-level Saudi Officials’ individual liability, including the CrownPrince’s. She warns against a disproportionate emphasis on identifying who ordered thecrime, pointing out that the search for justice and accountability is not singularly dependenton finding a smoking gun and the person holding it. The search is also, if not primarily, aboutidentifying those who, in the context of the commission of a violation, have abused, or failedto fulfill, the responsibilities of their positions of authority.Duty to investigate and consular immunity5.The Special Rapporteur has found that both the investigations conducted by SaudiArabia and Turkey failed to meet international standards regarding the investigation intounlawful deaths.6.Saudi officials were present in the Saudi consulate and residence in Istanbul from 6 to15 October during which time they presumably investigated the killing. However, the SpecialRapporteur was not provided with any information regarding the evidence they may havecollected during this period. The Saudi Public Prosecution made public a few of their findingson 15 November but the statement was light on details, limiting itself to a few generalallegations. Other statements regarding the actions and responsibilities of specific individualswere a welcomed step. However, the Special Rapporteur notes that some of the individualsallegedly referenced in these statements and the identity of 11 perpetrators currently on trialdo not match. Further, the Saudi authorities have yet to disclose the whereabouts of theremains of Mr. Khashoggi.7.The Special Rapporteur found that under the terms of the VCCR, Saudi authoritieswere under no legal obligation to grant access to the Consular premises to the Turkishinvestigators. However, Saudi Arabia was under an international obligation to cooperate withthe Turkish authorities in the investigation of the killing of Mr. Khashoggi. Such cooperationnecessarily demanded that they gave access to the consulate to the Turkish authorities in a4GE.18-20105

A/HRC/41/CRP.1prompt and effective fashion and in good faith. Consular immunity was never intended toenable impunity.8.The Special Rapporteur found credible evidence pointing to the crime scenes havingbeen thoroughly, even forensically, cleaned. These indicate that the Saudi investigation wasnot conducted in good faith, and that it may amount to obstructing justice.9.Turkish investigators, accompanied by Saudi investigators, only had access to theConsulate on the 15th October for 6 hours and to the Consul’ residence on 17th October foraround thirteen hours, where they also had to search the whole consular vehicle fleet. Theirscientific and forensic inquiries were limited to “swabbing” and they were not allowed todrain a well located in the residence. The limitations imposed by Saudi Arabia on the Turkishinvestigation cannot be justified by the need to protect Consular operations.10.Turkish investigators decided not to search the Saudi Consulate without properauthorization from the Saudi authorities. The Special Rapporteur found that this was theappropriate way to proceed: creating an exception to the VCCR grounded inviolability of theSaudi Consular premises for the purpose of an investigation would have been unnecessaryand disproportionate.11.She also found that Turkey’s fear over an escalation of the situation and retributionmeant that the consular residences or consular cars were also not searched without permissioneven though they are not protected by the VCCR.12.The Special Rapporteur regrets that it appears no international body or other Statecame forward with an offer to “mediate” between the two parties to negotiate prompt andeffective access to the crime scene. This could have been done to also help de-escalate thecrisis, protect equally the VCCR and human rights, and address as well the fear of retaliation.Instead, it appears that other Member States pondered rather only their own national andstrategic interests. The United Nations either considered it had no evident means ofintervention or elected not to intervene. In retrospect, it is evident that the ultimate casualtyof these considerations was justice and accountability for Jamal Khashoggi.Duty to protect and to warn13.On the basis of credible information at her disposal, the Special Rapporteur hasconcluded that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that either Turkey or the United Statesknew, or ought to have known, of a real and imminent or foreseeable threat to Mr.Khashoggi’s life. There was credible evidence to suggest that, had Mr. Khashoggi returnedto Saudi Arabia, or been lured there, he would have been detained, possibly disappeared, andharmed. These risks were not linked to his life or presence in his countries of residence,namely the US or Turkey. She did not secure credible evidence that US authorities hadintercepted the Saudi Crown Prince’s communications or that such intercepts had beenassessed before the time of the killing of Mr. Khashoggi.14.The killing of Mr. Khashoggi has highlighted the vulnerabilities of dissidents livingabroad, and the risks they are facing of covert actions by the authorities of their countries oforigin or non-State actors associated to them. The States of the countries where they havefound residence or exile are under an obligation to respect their human rights, and protectthem against violence by the States of the countries they have escaped from. This obligationshould entail, namely:GE.18-20105a.The duty to protect is triggered whenever Governments know or ought to knowof a real and immediate threat or risk to someone’s life;b.Such an obligation to protect includes, but is not limited to, a duty to warn theindividual of an imminent threat to their lifec.The obligation to protect, including the duty to warn, is imposed on allGovernments agencies and institutions, and thus includes IntelligenceAgenciesd.The obligation to protect applies regardless of the status of citizen or alien onthe territories of the State.5