A/HRC/41/36 nationally will not work or may not work extraterritorially, such as around-the-clock surveillance, unless they are done with the consent of the State where the individuals at risk reside. 64. Of all the activities possibly triggered by the responsibility to protect, the duty to warn may be the one imposing a minimum burden on the States concerned. In an extraterritorial context, it is likely to be implemented through the security agencies of the States where the person at risk is located. For instance, it has been widely reported that the Central Intelligence Agency informed the Norwegian Police Security Service that Palestinian-born Arab Spring activist Illia Baghdadi, residing in Norway, was facing credible threats originating from Saudi Arabia. Mr. Baghdadi and others were warned against travelling to specific countries where Saudi Arabia is said to have influence and were instructed to take a wide range of precautions. 49 65. Where cooperating with the security agencies of other States is not feasible, intelligence agencies or national authorities may be in a position to inform the States concerned that they are aware of credible risks to the right to life of specific individuals, thus possibly preventing further escalation. 66. Intelligence agencies or national authorities may also be in a position to directly warn the individual concerned, even if they cannot implement any other specific protection measures themselves. There is no evidence that such a warning could constitute, under Directive 191, one of the circumstances for which a waiver of the duty may be granted. Warnings could be framed in such a way that the individuals whose lives are at risk would not know anything about the methods used to obtain the relevant information, so that there was no risk that the methods in question could be compromised or publicly exposed.50 67. The question may be raised as to whether such direct warnings to individuals could violate the principle according to which a State cannot take measures on the territory of another State by means of enforcement of national laws without the consent of the latter. The Special Rapporteur takes the position that there must be a presumption that such warnings, which are aimed at protecting a jus cogens norm such as the right to life, 51 or an obligation erga omnes, or at preventing a crime that may be the object of universal jurisdiction, do not violate the aforementioned principle and should not be opposed by other States.52 IV. Conclusion: strengthening protection and accountability 68. The responsibility to protect has a long history in the international legal system and in standards on State responsibility. It has been applied in a range of circumstances to mandate States to prevent acts of violence, when committed either by State actors or by non-State actors.53 Such a principle has not been widely analysed with regard to the content of the legal obligations of States towards the protection of citizens or non-citizens living in exile on, or passing through, their territories who may be facing threats from their State of origin. These include, in the first place, journalists, human rights defenders or so-called dissidents. 69. The killing of Mr. Khashoggi has highlighted the vulnerabilities and the risks that those individuals face of covert actions by the authorities of their countries of origin or non49 50 51 52 53 14 Personal communication. Extrapolation from the thoughtful analysis by Milanovic in “The murder of Jamal Khashoggi” (p. 21) of the responsibility to protect Mr. Khashoggi. Such a presumption applies with particular force to situations involving individuals with whom States have a special relationship that renders them particularly well placed to protect those individuals. See Shany, “Taking universality seriously”, p. 69. This proposal is in keeping with a range of doctrinal and strategic developments, such as the responsibility to protect, the protection of civilians, the development of early warning capacity and, more recently, the call by the Secretary-General for a culture of prevention within the United Nations and among Member States. See www.un.org/sg/en/priorities/prevention.shtml. See Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al. v. United States, para. 19.