as stated in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 51 the meaning of a provision in an international treaty must be established by examining the ordinary meaning of the terms employed, in light of their context and the object and purpose of the treaty. 52 Subsequent practice of States in applying the treaty as well as relevant rules of international law must also be taken into consideration in interpreting a treaty. 53 24. For the reasons set out below, UNHCR is of the view that the purpose, intent and meaning of Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention are unambiguous and establish an obligation not to return a refugee or asylum-seeker to a country where he or she would be risk of persecution or other serious harm, which applies wherever a State exercises jurisdiction, including at the frontier, on the high seas or on the territory of another State. 54 A. Scope Ratione Loci of Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention: Ordinary Meaning, Context, Object and Purpose of the 1951 Convention 25. As noted above, the focus of the present inquiry is the territorial scope of the non-refoulement provision under Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention. In keeping with the primary rule of treaty interpretation stated in Article 31(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention, it is necessary, first, to examine the ordinary meaning of the terms of Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention, taking into account their context as well as the object and purpose of the treaty of which it forms part. 26. The obligation set out in Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention is subject to a geographic restriction only with regard to the country where a refugee may not be sent to, not the place where he or she is sent from. The extraterritorial applicability of the non-refoulement obligation under Article 33(1) is clear from the text of the provision itself, which states a simple prohibition: “No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened…”. 51 52 53 54 Supra footnote 35 [hereinafter, “1969 Vienna Convention”]. The 1969 Vienna Convention is generally regarded as expressing rules which constitute customary international law. Article 31(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention provides: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” Article 31(3) of the 1969 Vienna Convention provides that, in interpreting a treaty: “… there shall be taken into account, together with the context, … (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation; (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between parties.” In a decision which addressed the applicability inter alia of Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention to the return to Haiti of persons intercepted on the high seas by U.S. coast guard vessels, the United States Supreme Court determined that Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention is applicable only to persons within the territory of the United States (Sale, Acting Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al., Petitioners v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., et. al., 509 U.S. 155 (1993)). For the reasons set out in this advisory opinion, UNHCR is of the view that the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Sale does not accurately reflect the scope of Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention. See also Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in The Haitian Centre for Human Rights et al. v. United States, supra footnote 42, para. 157 (“… The Commission shares the view advanced by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in its Amicus Curiae brief in its argument before the Supreme Court, that Article 33 had no geographical limitations.”). 12