A/HRC/44/38 “any possibility of an ex post facto judgment of lawfulness by the very fact that it aims to deal in advance with threats that have not yet materialized”.71 51. The right to life imposes procedural obligations as well. The “use of lethal force by the state must be effectively regulated by a clear legal framework and the planning and control of any particular operation must be such as to minimize the risk of loss of life”.72 In addition, “there must be an effective independent investigation capable of leading to accountability for any unlawful deprivation of life”.73 52. Attention to procedural obligations would help alleviate concerns about substantive violations. If the US, or other States, were more transparent as to the evidence on which their determinations were made, and allowed those determinations to be investigated and challenged, then concerns about potential unlawful killings could be addressed. Moreover, these procedures would aid in developing more robust standards for imminence, necessity and proportionality by giving facts and substance to the decisions made. 53. The Special Rapporteur is mindful of the variety of sanctions and designations attached to General Soleimani, including the 2007 UN Security Council Resolution 1747 against Iran nuclear and ballistic program (24 March 2007),74 the US Executive Order 13382 against “Proliferation Activities and Support for terrorism” (25 October 2007), 75 the European Union Regulation 611/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic (23 June 2011) 76 , and the US “Foreign Terrorist Organization” designation of 15 April 2019 77 . The IRGC were reportedly involved in shooting Iranian protestors in 201978 while the al-Qads forces were implicated in the groundoffensive to besiege eastern Aleppo city.79 The Special rapporteur is also aware of the extent to which he appeared to be revered in Iran. Meeting the procedural obligations of IHRL would have allowed evidence to be presented regarding the human rights violations he may have been responsible for, incited or permitted. The proper course was to join forces with others to bring him and others associated with him to justice in the appropriate international forum. Any concerns the US or other countries might have had about possible inadequacies of international justice should have been addressed through strengthening those institutions, not disregarding them altogether. V. Lawfulness of the killing under jus ad bellum 54. Under the UN Charter, States are expected to commit to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political Independence” of any State and to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means”. Art. 2 (3), 2 (4). However, a State retains the right “of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs” (Art. 51). Although there is continuous debate over the precise contours of this right (to self-defence) there appears to be a consensus that a State can defend itself against a current, ongoing attack as well as an attack that is imminent, where the attack is “instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means, no moment of deliberation.”80 55. On January 8, 2020, the United States submitted a letter to the Security Council about the strike against General Soleimani, fulfilling an obligation under Art. 51. This letter provides the US formal explanation as to why its strike constituted an act of self-defence. As such, this letter should be the sole basis in determining the legality of the strike under the 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Elisabeth Wilmhurst, Principles of International Law on the Use of Force in Self-defence, p. 9. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201516/jtselect/jtrights/574/574.pdf p. 53. Ibid. https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/s/res/1747-%282007%29. https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/oct/94193.htm. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:164:0001:0003:EN:PDF. https://www.state.gov/designation-of-the-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps/. https://www.ohchr.org/FR/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25393&LangID=E. A/HRC/34/64. R.Y. Jennings, “The Caroline and McLeod cases”, American Journal of International Law, January 1938. See also UN Doc A/59/565 and Corr.1, at para. 188, www2.ohchr.org/English/ bodies/hrcouncil/docs/gaA.59.565_En.pdf. 33