A/HRC/41/CRP.1 III. The responsibility to protect and to warn following the execution of Mr. Khashoggi 382. The principle of due diligence has a long history in the international legal system and standards on state responsibility. It has been applied in a range of circumstances to mandate States to prevent, punish, and provide remedies for acts of violence, when these are committed by either State or non-State actors.319 Due diligence has been widely interpreted in the context of a State legal obligation regarding the principle of non-refoulement of those seeking safety. However, the Special Rapporteur observes that such a principle has not been widely interpreted with regard to the content of States’ legal obligations towards the protection of citizens or non-citizens, living in exile on, or passing by their territories, who may be facing threats from their State of origin. These include, in the first place, journalists, human rights defenders or so-called dissidents. 383. The killing of Mr. Khashoggi has highlighted their vulnerabilities, and the risks they face of covert actions by the authorities of their countries of origin or non-State actors associated with them. Such actions amount to human rights violations and may include extrajudicial execution, abduction and enforced disappearance, threats, harassment and electronic surveillance. They may also include threats of a more psychological nature, focusing on threats to the dissident’s loved ones who have remained behind. 384. The States of the countries where journalists, human rights defenders or dissidents have found residence or exile are under an obligation to respect their human rights, and to protect them against violence by the States of the countries from which they have escaped. Obligations to protect the rights of this population, including their right to life, should figure large on a State priorities given the implications for national security and territorial integrity posed by the extraterritorial reach of other States. On the other hand, the obligation to protect should not impose such a disproportionate burden that it may discourage States from providing refugee status, residency or citizenship to journalists, human rights defenders or dissidents. 385. This section has provided an analysis of what the obligation to protect should entail, namely: (a) The duty to protect is triggered whenever Governments know or ought to know of a real and immediate threat or risk to someone’s life; (b) Such an obligation to protect includes, but is not limited to, a duty to warn the individual of an imminent threat to their life; (c) The obligation to protect, including the duty to warn, is imposed on all Governments agencies and institutions, and thus includes Intelligence Agencies; (d) The obligation to protect is triggered regardless of the status of citizen or alien on the territories of the State; (e) The obligation to protect, including the duty to warn, demands that risks assessment considers whether some individuals may be particularly at risk because of their identity or activities, such as journalists or human rights defenders; (f) The obligation to protect, including the duty to warn, may be triggered extraterritorially, whenever States exercise power or effective control over individual’s enjoyment of the right to life. 386. In the aftermath of the execution of Mr. Khashoggi, and in view of the information and cases that his killing has generated, the Special Rapporteur recommends that Intelligence, Security and Law enforcement agencies should review their policies and procedures to determine whether they are meeting their due diligence obligation to protect the right to life, and prevent threats and violence by Foreign States and non-State actors against their citizens or non-citizens on their territories. She notes that there is evidence of an increase in the number of persons seeking safety abroad, including journalists, human rights defenders or political dissidents. Anecdotal evidence also indicates that the extraterritorial use of targeted 319 Jessica Lenehan (Gonzales) v. United States, para 19. 75