A/HRC/41/CRP.1 (a) High level officers planned, supervised and thus authorised the mission, exhorted the team members about the importance of the mission to national security, and expected the team to report back to headquarters. (b) The officers who killed Mr. Khashoggi acted “under cover of their status as officers and used means placed at their disposal on account of that status.”185 (c) The killing was only possible because of the pretense of government service: Mr. Khashoggi entered the Consulate, on a prearranged date, to obtain an official government document. (d) The killing occurred at the Consulate in or near the Consul General’s office. (e) The killing was premeditated and prepared in Saudi Arabia; with the possible exception of the pathologist, most of the 15-persons Team was likely in place before 28 September. (f) Nine team members flew into Turkey on a private jet with diplomatic clearance. (g) Two members of the team used diplomatic passports. (h) State security agency officials arranged for all travel, including the private jets and accommodations. (i) The Consul General used the power of his office to clear the Consulate and Residence of witnesses. (j) The security team used government vehicles, apparently to transfer the body. There can be no doubt that these officials acted in their capacity as State officials, with State means at their disposal, whether or not those on the ground “contravened instructions.” Accordingly, Mr. Khashoggi’s killing constituted an extrajudicial killing for which State responsibility attaches. Such a conclusion is further re-enforced by the failure of the State to investigate the execution of Mr. Khashoggi in accordance with international standards186, a failure which constitutes a separate violation of Mr. Khashoggi’s right to life. IV. State Responsibility for International Wrongful Acts 220. An internationally wrongful act of a State “may consist of one or more actions or omissions or a combination of both”187. Whether an act is wrongful is derived from treaties obligations or customary law obligations which the State in question may have violated. There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when “conduct consisting of an action or omission a) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State and b) is attributable to the State under international law”188. 221. Initially and generally, the concept of an international wrongful act has been applied bilaterally, i.e., an act done by one State against the “injured State,” in violation of the first State’s international obligations. Increasingly, “it has been recognized that some wrongful acts engage the responsibility of the State concerned towards several or many States or even towards the international community as a whole.”189 222. The State’s violation of Mr. Khashoggi’s right to life has been established. In addition to violating Mr. Khashoggi’s right to life, Saudi Arabia can also be credibly argued to have committed a wrongful act against Turkey, violating multiple obligations to that State, a wrongful act against the United States, and a wrongful act against the entire international community, given its violation of the peremptory and customary norm against extrajudicial killings, its violation of the sanctity of the Consulate and its unjustified use of deadly force 185 186 187 188 189 44 Ibid., para. 5 (quoting the Caire case). See Part III of this report. Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries (2001), Article 1, para. 1. Ibid., Art. 2. Ibid., Art. 1, para. 4.