110 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6has also been upheld by several international law instruments. 297 It isnot subject to derogation. 298The refugee law principle of non-refoulement applies both to refugeespresent on the territory of the State and as well as at the border. 299 Theprinciple of non-refoulement also applies to extradition procedures 300and it must be observed in all situations of large-scale influx. 301 Thisflows from the same wording of Article 33.1 which refers to refoulement“in any manner whatsoever”, thereby including all forms of transfer ofa person from the territory of asylum or where asylum is sought. Theprinciple of non-refoulement also bears consequences for temporary ordiscretionary protections (see, Chapter 1).The definition of refoulement of Article 33.1, unlike the definition of refugee,refers to risks arising in any country where the person concernedmight be sent, and not necessarily in the country of origin or habitualresidence. This includes third States which might transfer the personto an unsafe country (indirect refoulement). The “threat to life or freedom”is also broader than, and includes, the refugee definition. It has,indeed, been read as encompassing circumstances of generalised violencewhich pose a threat to the life or freedom of the person but whichdo not give rise to persecution. 302Nevertheless, the Geneva Refugee Convention provides for a restrictionon the principle which may not “be claimed by a refugee whom thereare reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security ofthe country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a finaljudgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to thecommunity of that country.” 303297 See, Articles III and V, Revised Bangkok Declaration; Article 3, Declaration on TerritorialAsylum of 1967, UNGA resolution 2132(XXII), 14 December 1967; Article II.3, OAU RefugeeConvention; Article 22.8 ACHR; Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, Section III, para. 5.298 Conclusion No. 79, UNHCR, op. cit., fn. 79, para. (i). See also, UNGA resolution 51/75, UNDoc. A/RES/51/75, 12 February 1997, para. 3.299 Conclusion No. 6, UNHCR, op. cit., fn. 293, para. (c). See also, Conclusion No. 17 (XXXI)Problems of Extradition Affecting Refugees, ExCom, UNHCR, 31 st Session, 1980, para. (b).The need to admit refugees into the territories of States includes no rejection at frontierswithout fair and effective procedures for determining status and protection needs: see, ConclusionNo. 82, UNHCR, op. cit., fn. 296, para. (d-iii).300 See, Conclusion No. 17, UNHCR, op. cit., fn. 299, paras. (c) and (d).301 See Conclusion No. 19 (XXXI) Temporary Refuge, ExCom, UNHCR, 31 st Session, 1980,para. (a); Conclusion No. 22, UNHCR, op. cit., fn. 151, para. (II-A-2).302 See UNHCR, Note on Non-refoulement (Submitted by the High Commissioner), UN Doc.EC/SCP/2, 23 August 1977, para. 4; and, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and Daniel Bethlehem, TheScope and Content of the Principle of Non-refoulement: Opinion, 20 June 2001, pp. 124–125,paras. 128–133.303 Article 33.2, Geneva Refugee Convention. The OAU Refugee Convention does not providewith exceptions to the principle of non-refoulement which is therefore absolute in Africa.
MIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | 111The restriction to the refugee law principle of non-refoulement focuses,therefore, on the refugee representing a “danger” to the securityor to the community of the country. This is a higher threshold thanthat of Article 1F for exclusion from refugee status, as in this case it islimited only to future threats coming from the person and not to pastactivities.The first restriction—the danger to national security—must concern adanger in the future and not be only based on past conduct. It must bea danger to the country of refuge. While the authorities have a certaindiscretionary latitude in identifying the danger, they must conduct anindividual assessment on whether there are “reasonable grounds” forconsidering the refugee a danger to national security, based on the principlesof necessity and proportionality. In this regard, the authoritieswill have to consider: the seriousness of the danger for national security;the likelihood of the realisation of the danger and its imminence;whether the danger to the security would be diminished significantly oreliminated by the removal of the individual; the nature and seriousnessof the risks to the individual from refoulement; and whether other avenuesmay be found whether in the country of refuge or in a third safecountry. 304The second restriction refers to a danger to the “community”, which isto be considered as the safety and well-being of the population in general,unlike national security which refers to the interests of the State. 305The requirement of “having been convicted by a final judgement of aparticularly serious crime” must be read consistently with the exclusionclause in Article 1F(b) which applies to those having committed aserious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to theiradmission in the country as a refugee. It follows that, in order not torepeat the provision of exclusion, Article 33.2 necessarily refers only toparticularly serious crimes committed subsequent to the admission asa refugee.Contrary to the Geneva Refugee Convention, EU Directive 2011/95/EC(Qualification Directive) conflates the restriction grounds of the refugeelaw principle of non-refoulement with the exclusion clauses for refugeestatus, by including among the grounds for revocation, ending orrefusal to grant or renew refugee status 306 and among the exclusionclauses for subsidiary protection 307 persons constituting a danger to thecommunity or the security of the State of refuge or of protection. Thisdifference suggests a rather extensive interpretation of these grounds304 See, Lauterpacht/Bethlehem, op. cit., fn. 302, pp. 137–138, para. 178.305 See, ibid., p. 140, para. 192.306 Article 14.4–5, EU Qualification Directive, op. cit., fn. 98.307 Article 17.1(d), ibid.