A/HRC/41/CRP.1 Khashoggi’s killing, the incident was treated as one of disappearance 260, the argument may be made that Turkey, until it had fully concluded that Mr. Khashoggi was dead, that is officially on 4 October, could have entered the premises for the purpose of investigating an enforced disappearance, thus for the purpose of protecting Mr. Khashoggi’s life, because there was no other reasonable way of saving his life or at the very least of protecting him against abduction. 310. Such arguments, however, cannot be advanced for the period following the official recognition that Mr. Khashoggi had been killed; that is after the Turkish Intelligence knew with a high degree of certainty that they were dealing with a killing. 311. At this point in time, that is on or around 4 October, the question is thus whether Turkey’s duty to investigate the killing takes precedence over their obligation to abide by the VCCR. In other words, does ICCPR article 6 takes precedence over Article 31 of the VCCR? 312. In the absence of a clear hierarchy of international norms and bodies guiding the analysis of the conflict between the VCCR and the obligation to conduct an effective and prompt investigation into an alleged extrajudicial execution, one possible way of addressing the conflict between the VCCR and the ICCPR is to apply the three part test that is used to rule over conflicts of rights or interests. 313. Given that both are derived from international and Turkish law, the analysis of the conflict relies on an appreciation of whether the exception to the inviolability of the Consulate constituted a necessary and proportionate response to the duty to investigation. 314. There are no reasons to suggest that the forced entry into the Consulate would have been necessary or proportionate to the interest at stake, namely the implementation of the duty to investigate. In explanation, two factors may be advanced: (a) First, Turkey could, and indeed, did, negotiate diplomatically with Saudi Arabia to gain lawful access to the consulate. (b) Second, Turkey had the possibility of investigating a number of other crime scenes, including the residence of the consul and the vehicles of the consulateSuch assessment of other crime scenes of lesser importance, may be unsatisfactory from an investigatory standpoint. But this must be weighed against the centrality and importance of the Vienna Conventions on Consular and Diplomatic Relations, to international relations and governance. 315. Turkey therefore should have been in a position to benefit from Saudi Arabia’s own implementation of its duty to implement a prompt and effective investigation, including of the crime scenes upon which it had jurisdiction. The onus was thus on Saudi Arabia which should have not only consented to Turkey lawfully gaining entry to the premises for the purpose of crime scene investigation, but invited Turkey to do so promptly after the reported disappearance or killing, and effectively. 316. Most importantly, the onus was on Saudi Arabia to protect the crime scene for future Turkish investigation or at the very least to share all evidence collected. 317. On balance, creating an exception to the inviolability of the Saudi Consular Premises was neither necessary nor proportionate to Turkish interests (and obligations) at stake, conducting an investigation into an unlawful death, which could or should have been achieved through other means. Access to the Consular Residence Premises 318. The VCCR sets out that Consular premises cannot be entered or searched without permission, but the private residence of a Consul could be.261 “Neither the consul’s residence nor property has any inviolability.”262 In other words, Turkey did not require Saudi consent to search the consul premises, or accept any limits on how and to what extent the search is to 260 261 262 62 Interview, Chief Prosecutor, Turkey, January 2019 ILC Draft Articles on Consular Relations, with commentaries, para. 9 (noting that only a very few bilateral conventions and municipal systems recognized the inviolability of a consular residence). Foakes and Denza, para. 8.39.