Non-refoulement provisions modelled on Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention have also been incorporated into extradition treaties 24 as well as a number of anti-terrorism conventions both at the universal and regional level. 25 Moreover, the principle of nonrefoulement has been re-affirmed in the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees 26 and other, important non-binding international texts, including, in particular, the Declaration on Territorial Asylum adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1967. 27 24 25 26 27 country his right to life or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his race, nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions.” In the context of extradition, these provisions are usually referred to as “discrimination clauses”. See, for example, Article 3(2) of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, ETS 024, 359 U.N.T.S. 273 entered into force 18 April 1960 (“[Extradition shall not be granted] if the requested Party has substantial grounds for believing that a request for extradition for an ordinary criminal offence has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.”); Article 4(5) of the 1981 Inter-American Convention on Extradition, 20 I.L.M. 723 (1981), entered into force 28 March 1992 (“Extradition shall not be granted … when, from the circumstances of the case, it can be inferred that persecution for reasons of race, religion or nationality is involved, or that the position of the person sought may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.”) See, for example, Article 9(1) of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, 1316 U.N.T.S. 205, entered into force 3 June 1983 (“A request for the extradition of an alleged offender, pursuant to this Convention, shall not be granted if the requested State Party has substantial grounds for believing: (a) that the request for extradition for an offence set forth in article 1 has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion; or (b) that the person’s position may be prejudiced: (i) for any of the reasons mentioned in subpara. (a) of this para. …”). See also Article 12 of the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, 37 I.L.M. 249 (1998), entered into force 23 May 2001 (“Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite or to afford mutual legal assistance, if the requested State Party has substantial grounds for believing that the request for extradition for offences set forth in article 2 or for mutual legal assistance with respect to such offences has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion or that compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person’s position for any of these reasons.”), and the almost identical provisions in Article 15 of the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 39 I.L.M. 270 (2000), entered into force 10 April 2002; Article 5 of the 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, ETS 090, 1137 U.N.T.S. 93, entered into force 4 August 1978; Article 14 of the 2002 Inter-American Convention against Terrorism, 42 I.L.M. 19 (2003), entered into force 7 October 2003. Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, 22 November 1984, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66/doc.10, rev. 1, at 190-93 (1984-85) [hereinafter, “Cartagena Declaration”]. The Conclusion set out in section III(5) reads: “To reiterate the importance and meaning of the principle of non-refoulement (including the prohibition of rejection at the frontier) as a corner-stone of the international protection of refugees…” While not legally binding, the provisions of the Cartagena Declaration have been incorporated into the legislation of numerous States in Latin America. A/RES/2312 (XXII), 14 December 1967, at Article 3 ( “No person referred to in Article 1, para. 1, shall be subjected to measures such as rejection at the frontier or, if he has already entered the territory in which he seeks asylum, expulsion or compulsory return to any State where he may be subjected to persecution.”). See also Resolution (67) 14 on Asylum to Persons in Danger of Persecution, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 29 June 1967, para. 2 (recommending that Governments should “…ensure […] that no one shall be subjected to refusal of admission at the frontier, rejection, expulsion or any other measure which would have the result of compelling him to return to, or remain in, a territory where he would be in danger of persecution.”). 6