9. The non-refoulement obligation under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention is binding on all organs of a State party to the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol 15 as well as any other person or entity acting on its behalf. 16 As discussed in more detail in Part II below, the obligation under Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention not to send a refugee or asylum-seeker to a country where he or she may be at risk of persecution is not subject to territorial restrictions; it applies wherever the State in question exercises jurisdiction. 10. Exceptions to the principle of non-refoulement under the 1951 Convention are permitted only in the circumstances expressly provided for in Article 33(2), which stipulates that: “The benefit of [Article 33(1)] may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he [or she] is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.” The application of this provision requires an individualized determination by the country in which the refugee is that he or she comes within one of the two categories provided for under Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention.17 11. The provisions of Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention do not affect the host State’s non-refoulement obligations under international human rights law, which permit no exceptions. Thus, the host State would be barred from removing a refugee if this 15 16 17 in the full and inclusive application of the 1951 Convention outside the context of mass influx situations. See UNHCR, Asylum Processes (Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures), EC/GC/01/12, 31 May 2001, paras. 4–5. See also Executive Committee, Conclusion No. 81 (XLVIII) “General” (1997), para. (h); Conclusion No. 82 (XLVIII), “Safeguarding Asylum” (1997), para. (d)(iii); Conclusion No. 85 (XLIX), “International Protection” (1998), para. (q); Conclusion No. 99 (LV), “General Conclusion on International Protection” (2004), para. (l). See supra footnote 5. Under applicable rules of international law, this applies to the acts, or omissions, of all organs, subdivisions and persons exercising governmental authority in legislative, judicial or executive functions, and acting in that capacity in the particular instance, as well as to the conduct of organs placed at the disposal of a State by another State, even if they exceed their authority or contravene instructions. Pursuant to Articles 4–8 of the Articles of State Responsibility, the conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the conduct (Articles on State Responsibility, Articles 4–8). The Articles of State Responsibility were adopted by the International Law Commission without a vote and with consensus on virtually all points. The Articles and their commentaries were subsequently referred to the General Assembly with the recommendation that the General Assembly initially take note of and annex the text of the articles in a resolution, reserving to a later session the question whether the articles should be embodied in a convention on State responsibility. See J. Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentary. Cambridge University Press, UK: 2002. The General Assembly annexed the Articles on State Responsibility to its resolution 56/83 of 12 December 2001 on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. For a detailed discussion of the criteria which must be met for Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention to apply, see E. Lauterpacht and D. Bethlehem, supra footnote 13, paras. 145–192. On the “danger to the security” exception, see also “Factum of the Intervenor, UNHCR, Suresh v. the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; the Attorney General of Canada, SCC No. 27790” (hereinafter: “UNHCR, Suresh Factum”), in 14:1 International Journal of Refugee Law (2002). 4