A/HRC/41/CRP.1 interest in their protection. 203 ” A serious breach of a peremptory norm of general international law, constituting a “gross or systematic failure by the responsible State,” is such an obligation: it has an erga omnes character, giving all States a legal interest in its protection. 232. The Committee Against Torture in its recent follow-up to its concluding observations on Saudi Arabia suggests that the circumstances of the extrajudicial killing of Mr. Khashoggi point to a possible act of torture.204 Both the possible torture of Mr. Khashoggi and his continuing disappearance because of the unknown location of his remains, qualify as a gross failure by Saudi Arabia, requiring an international response. 233. Saudi Arabia’s violation of the VCCR and its extraterritorial use of force constitute serious breaches which concern all States. Indeed, the International Law Commission has specifically cited the violent breach of an embassy as an example where injury to one state “does not exclude that all States parties may have an interest of a general character in compliance with international law and in the continuation of international institutions and arrangements which have been built up over the years205.” 234. Article 41 of the Draft Articles provides that States “shall cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means of any serious breach within the meaning of article 40.” Although arguably the breach of international law has ended – Mr. Khashoggi is dead – serious breaches continue. Mr. Khashoggi’s remains have not been recovered and returned to his family, Saudi Arabia has not met its obligation to investigate this crime properly under international law, and, to the Special Rapporteur’s knowledge, Saudi Arabia has failed to comply, in good faith, with the obligation of non-repetition. V. Individual criminal responsibilities for the killing of Mr. Khashoggi 235. It is the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur that Mr. Khashoggi has been the victim of a deliberate, premeditated execution, an extrajudicial killing for which the state of Saudi Arabia is responsible under international human rights law. In addition, the execution of Mr. Khashoggi demands that those responsible be identified and held to account for their role in the execution of Mr. Khashoggi. 236. Yet, some eight months after the execution of Mr. Khashoggi, the determination and assignment of individual responsibilities remain clouded in secrecy and lack of due process. (a) The trial of 11 suspects has been undertaken in Saudi Arabia. While the Government of Saudi Arabia has not made their identity public, reliable information obtained by the Special Rapporteur indicates that some members of the 15-man team identified by Turkey as well as other officials have not been charged. The Saudi government investigated 10 individuals in addition to those charged but no information has been issued as to whether that investigation continues. (b) Turkey intends to prosecute individuals for the crime but it also has not made public the identity of those it will seek to try. (c) Other States, including the United States, France, Germany, and the UK, as well as the European Union have instituted sanctions against individuals. The United States has sanctioned all individuals in the 15-man team made public by Turkey, as well as two more: the Crown Prince Adviser, Saud Alqahtani and the Consul General Mohammed Alotaibi – a different group of individuals than is currently on trial in Saudi Arabia. Specifically, it has not sanctioned Ahmed Asiri, the person whom the Saudi prosecutor appears to claim organized the mission, but has sanctioned Saud Alqahtani whom Saudi 203 204 205 ILC, Art. 40, para.8 The Committee Against Torture has determined that the killing of Mr. Khashoggi may have possibly violated the Convention Against Torture, ratified by Saudi Arabia. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CAT/Shared%20Documents/SAU/INT_CAT_FUL_SAU_33228 _E.pdf Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States, Art. 42, para. 9 47