A/HRC/41/CRP.1 PART III - Investigation into the execution of Jamal Khashoggi 258. The duty to investigate is central to upholding the right to life. 234 It asserts the inviolability and inherent value of the right to life through mechanisms of accountability, while simultaneously promoting remedies where violations have occurred. To this end, the duty gives practical effect and worth to a State’s obligations to respect and protect life. The obligation of investigation also includes duties of international cooperation, 235 no doubt heightened in a case such as the execution of Mr. Khashoggi, given the location of the crime (in a consulate). The obligation of cooperation was imposed on both Turkey and Saudi Arabia. 259. This section will assess the extent to which Turkey and Saudi Arabia met their international obligations to investigate the execution of Mr. Khashoggi, and to cooperate while doing so. It will analyse the complex legal issues the duty to investigate has generated and particularly how on the part of Turkey this duty may have conflicted with its obligation to respect the inviolability of the Saudi Consulate, as established by the VCCR. Some of the questions the section will seek to address are as follow: (a) Whether the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was under any obligation to grant access to the Consulate to the Turkish authorities for the purpose of an investigation; (b) Whether Turkey could have entered the Consular premises for the purpose of investigating, without the consent of the Consul or other recognised Saudi authorities; (c) What was the impact of the Turkish and Saudi interpretation of their obligations under the VCCR on the effectiveness of the investigation into the killing of Mr. Khashoggi? I. The standards: an overview236 An intrinsic part of the right to life 260. States have a procedural and moral obligation to investigate unlawful or suspicious deaths, whether the death occurs at the hands of State actors or private persons or persons unknown, and regardless of whether there is evidence of criminal action requiring investigation and prosecution under criminal law.237 An investigation is not dependent on a formal complaint or request from a next of kin, rather it should be automatically triggered.238 261. The consequences of non-investigation are extremely serious, including the violation of the right to life; the continuation of policies and practices which may impact on the right to life; and the perpetuation of a range of violations and bad practices because of the veil of ignorance or secrecy surrounding them. 262. A State’s responsibility to conduct an effective investigation extends beyond its borders. States must take necessary steps to secure relevant evidence from other States. States 234 235 236 237 238 54 ECtHR, McCann and others v. United Kingdom, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 27 September 1995, para. 161; IACtHR, Montero-Aranguren and others (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, Judgment, 5 July 2006, para. 66; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), General Comment No. 3 on the Right to Life, November 2015, paras. 2, 15; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, paras. 15 and 18; The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, New York/Geneva, 2017. IACtHR, La Cantuta v. Peru, Judgment, 29 November 2006, §160. Based on Minnesota Protocol 2016 Cyprus v. Turkey (2002) 35 E.H.R.R. 731, and Kelly and Others v. United Kingdom CEDH 2001 4.05.2001. Nelson Mandela Rules, Rule 71(1); ECtHR Varnava and others v Turkey, ECtHR [GC], GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, 18 September 2009.