A/HRC/41/CRP.1 PART IV. Responsibility to protect and the duty to warn 328. There has been speculation that Turkey and the United States may have had advance knowledge of the fate that ultimately befell Khashoggi and therefore that they violated their obligation to protect him. It has also been suggested that the United States in particular failed in its duty to warn Mr. Khashoggi of an imminent threat to his life. 329. These allegations highlight several issues related to the nature and extent of States’ obligation to protect against extrajudicial execution and, more generally, against unlawful death. These include: • When and how an obligation to protect individuals against risks to their life may be invoked; • Whether States have an obligation to protect against actions by other States and what are the implications of this; • Whether such an obligation to protect applies to non-citizens; • Whether such an obligation includes a duty to warn; • Whether such obligation may be invoked extra-territorially. This Section will seek to address these questions and then consider their implications in respect of the execution of Mr. Khashoggi. I. International standards 330. International human rights law imposes on States a duty to respect, protect and ensure human rights. Under the obligation to protect, States must act with due diligence to protect against actions by a Third Party that may infringe on a persons’ human rights, including their right to life. A State may incur international responsibility for failing to do so. 331. The responsibility to protect has been the object of much elaboration, including by Treaty Bodies, Special Procedures, regional and national courts around the world and expert legal and policy scholarship. This section will limit itself to presenting the issues relevant to the case of Mr. Khashoggi. 332. A key source for understanding the obligation to protect the right to life is the Human Rights Committee (HRC) General Comment 36 (thereafter GC 36)269, which summarises the HRC’s main observations and jurisprudence on the right to life, along with that of other wellrecognised sources under international law. The standard of due diligence 333. According to GC36, the obligation to protect includes establishing by law adequate institutions and procedures for preventing deprivation of life: States parties are under a due diligence obligation to undertake reasonable positive measures, which do not impose on them disproportionate burdens, in response to reasonably foreseeable threats to life. 334. The standard of due diligence, as applied to the responsibility to prevent an unlawful death, tends to rely on an assessment of: (a) how much the State knew or should have known; (b) the risks or likelihood of foreseeable270 harm; and (c) the seriousness of the harm.271 335. The principles of due diligence applied to the protection against unlawful death have been articulated by a range of courts around the world. Worth highlighting because of its direct impact on Turkey’s human rights obligations, is the European Court for Human Rights decision in Osman v. The United Kingdom, which involved claims against British police for 269 270 271 CCPR/C/GC/36 The regional and national jurisprudence includes a test of “immediacy” or “imminence” in addition to foreseeability. Osman v. The United Kingdom, ECHR Case No. 87/1997.871/108 (1998) at 32-33. 65