A/HRC/41/36 Universal jurisdiction 24. The Special Rapporteur has found that the killing of Mr. Khashoggi constitutes an international crime over which States should claim universal jurisdiction. The killing of Mr. Khashoggi is a violation of a jus cogens norm. It violates the provisions of the Vienna Convention and the prohibition against the extraterritorial use of force in times of peace. The circumstances of the execution may amount to an act of torture under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is a continuing case of enforced disappearance since the remains of Mr. Khashoggi have not been located. It concerns a journalist in self-imposed exile. His execution has an enduring international impact. Accountability 25. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that legal accountability for the execution of Mr. Khashoggi is being made difficult to obtain. The trial under way in Saudi Arabia will not deliver credible accountability; Turkey has not yet initiated proceedings and hopes for credible accountability are weak in countries with a track record of imprisonment of journalists. Jurisdictional challenges and the impossibility of conducting a trial in absentia mean that a trial in the United States will face many challenges. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur makes a number of proposals on how some of those issues may be addressed, while warning that no single proposal on its own will deliver credible accountability. III. Responsibility to protect and duty to warn 26. The right to life is a foundational and universally recognized right, applicable at all times and in all circumstances, including during armed conflict or other public emergencies. It is a norm of jus cogens, and is protected by international and regional treaties, customary international law and national legal systems. The “preservation of this right is one of the essential functions of the State and numerous provisions of national legislation … establish guarantees to ensure the enjoyment of this right”. 4 The responsibility to respect the right to life applies extraterritorially, at a minimum to those under the effective control of the State. 5 Irrespective of the applicability of treaty provisions recognizing the right to life, States are bound to ensure the realization of the right to life when they use force, whether inside or outside their borders.6 27. The right to life has two components. The first and material component is that every person has a right to be free from the arbitrary deprivation of life: it places certain limitations on the use of force. The second and more procedural component is the requirement of proper investigation and accountability where there is reason to believe that an arbitrary deprivation of life may have taken place. 28. States are required to respect and to protect the right to life “by law”. “Deprivation of life is, as a rule, arbitrary if it is inconsistent with international law or domestic law.” 7 Arbitrary deprivation of life includes targeted, intentional killing by States, also referred to as extrajudicial execution. 29. A State is obligated to take all necessary steps to ensure that its officials do not perpetrate an attack causing an extrajudicial killing or arbitrary deprivation of life. 8 In particular, a State must take all necessary steps to prevent killings, including by ensuring “strict control, including a clear chain of command over all officials responsible for apprehension, arrest, detention, custody and imprisonment” and prohibiting “orders from 4 5 6 7 8 6 A/37/564, para. 22. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 63. A/68/382, para. 43. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36, para. 12. Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions.