A/57/173 considering that (a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity; (b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; (c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (article 1 [f]). Acts of terrorism may, in some instances, certainly fall within one of these exclusion clauses. This, however, does not mean that the request for asylum of persons suspected of such acts should not be examined in accordance with all safeguards provided in human rights and refugee law. 29. It also noted that article 33, paragraph 2, of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees provides for the only exception to the principle of nonrefoulement in cases which arguably may relate to persons suspected of terrorism. Indeed, this paragraph reads as follows: “the benefit of the present provision [i.e., principle of non-refoulement] 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 is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country”. 30. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur would like to draw attention to the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which clearly states that an application for refugee status by a person having (or presumed to have) used force, or to have committed acts of violence of whatever nature and within whatever context, must in the first place — like any other application — be examined from the standpoint of the inclusion clauses in the 1951 Convention.27 Thus, the determination of refugee status on the basis of the full and fair individual review of an asylum-seeker’s claim should always take place before authorities assess the actual and direct danger posed by the presence of an asylumseeker to the national security of the hosting community. It has been reported that the more restrictive immigration policies were aimed at reversing the “inclusion before exclusion” approach advocated by UNHCR. The Handbook also states that due to their nature and the serious consequences of their application to a person in fear of persecution, the 10 exclusion clauses should be applied in a restrictive manner. 28 31. It is indeed a matter of law that serious criminals also deserve protection against persecution or prejudice, under full recognition that they should not escape trial and punishment. The Special Rapporteur would like to draw the attention of the General Assembly to his report to the last session of the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2002/137) in which he underlined the link between the nonderogable nature of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, and the principle of nonrefoulement. In particular, reference was made to the Human Rights Committee’s general comment 20 on article 7, and to article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The latter provides that no State party shall expel, return (refouler), or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The principle contained in the Human Rights Committee’s statement and the above provision of the Convention against Torture are an inherent part of the overall fundamental obligation to avoid contributing in any way to a violation of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. State practice, and the greater body of opinion, representing those most active in the protection of refugees and the development of refugee law, regards the principle of non-refoulement as likewise protecting the refugee from extradition.29 32. With respect to the pre-eminence of the principle of non-refoulement, the Special Rapporteur would like to underline the opinion of the European Court on Human Rights in the case of Chahal versus the United Kingdom in which the Court stated that the prohibition provided by article 3 [of the European Convention on Human Rights, i.e., prohibition of torture] against illtreatment is equally absolute in expulsion cases. Thus, whenever substantial grounds have been shown for believing that an individual would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 if removed to another State, the responsibility of the Contracting State to safeguard him or her against such treatment is engaged in the event of expulsion. In these circumstances, the activities of the individual in question, however undesirable or dangerous, cannot be a material consideration. The protection afforded by