Jamal Khashoggi and Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963

On October 2^nd, 2018, Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi Consulate General in Istanbul, Turkey, to pick up marriage documents - wherefrom he never reemerged.

He was murdered at the Consulate by a team of 15 members, which included a forensic expert. According to reports, his body was then dismembered.

Saudi Arabia’s official version about Khashoggi’s death has changed with each passing day.

Nevertheless, all leaks and reports lead to one same conclusion: the killing of Khashoggi was a premeditated murder, ordered by top echelons of the Saudi Monarchy, namely the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. Today, Turkish President Erdoğan corroborated before the Turkish Parliament that it was pre-planned. 

Furthermore, it is unimaginable that the crime was carried out without the prior knowledge of the Saudi Consul. However, the latter could have prevented it, but he never did – regardless of the reasons.

In addition to committing murder, violating Khashoggi’s right to life - under both domestic and international law - Saudi Arabia violated its obligations under international law, particularly diplomatic law, by turning its Consulate into a crime foyer.

In this respect, it is noteworthy that consular relations between Saudi Arabia and Turkey are governed by the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). 

Firstly, under the abovementioned Convention, the first listed function of a consulate is “protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, within the limits permitted by international law” (Article 5(a) of VCCR). Saudi Arabia clearly violated this Article by brutally murdering one of its citizens inside its Consulate, instead of protecting his interests.

Secondly, the sending State (Saudi Arabia in this case) has an obligation not to use its consulate in any manner incompatible with the exercise of consular functions (Article 55(2) of VCCR). In the cas d'espèce, Saudi Arabia used its Consulate in Istanbul to commit a crime. The crime was committed on Turkish territory, where Turkish law applies, despite the fact that the Consulate enjoys inviolability (or immunity).

Thirdly, the crime took place before the eyes of the Saudi Consul. By not preventing Khashoggi’s murder, or actually witnessing it, the Saudi Consul flatly breached his duties under the said Convention.

Although he enjoys privileges and immunities, the Saudi Consul has a duty to respect the laws and regulations of Turkey (Article 55(1) of VCCR). Perhaps he could not have been able to “physically” prevent the crime, but it is almost certain that he had been aware of the plan. As such, he could have simply informed the Turkish authorities, which in turn would have been able to arrest the “death team” upon arrival in Turkey. He could have at least requested the Turkish Police to prevent the 15-member team from entering the Consulate.

The Saudi Consul General did nothing to foil the plan. Otherwise, Turkey would have been able to take the necessary measures. This makes him criminally responsible. 

Now, can the Saudi Consul, who enjoys diplomatic immunity, be prosecuted before Turkish courts for this crime? The circumstances of the present case point out to a premeditated murder, and reportedly, dismemberment of body. It is not, for example,  a simple traffic violation. It is indeed a ‘grave crime’, for which even a consul general can be tried - in line with Article 41(1) of the VCCR. Accordingly, the Saudi Consul - together with the “death squad” - can be prosecuted in Turkey.

Finally, it is true that the Saudi Consul has furtively fled Turkey… but that’s a different story involving different procedures and responses.