A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 a US federal appeals court has recently rejected his suit for damages on the basis of the State secrecy privilege invoked by the United States Government.208 245. Extraordinary rendition for the purpose of torturing individuals is to be condemned as a clear violation of international law and the non-refoulement principle in particular. It is crucial to criminalize such methods and investigate and prosecute all cases of extraordinary rendition as complicity in torture in accordance with CAT in order to bring torturers to justice and restore faith in the human rights.209 C. Challenges in the restriction of immigration 246. Another major challenge for the non-refoulement principle is the increasingly restrictive management of migration by industrialised States. 247. As an attempt to prevent the application of the non-refoulement principle in the management of immigration, some States like France and Australia have declared parts of their territories, such as international airports or island territories “international zones”.210 The European Court of Human Rights has stated that “despite its name, the international zone does not have extra-territorial status”.211 Such attempts are not in line with international law and jurisprudence. It is not decisive where the refoulement of an alien takes place but only whether it takes place in the exercise of effective control over the concerned person or territory. 248. In the past, Western States have significantly increased their efforts to combat “illegal immigration”. For this purpose, migration management has been moved further beyond the actual physical State borders into third countries and the high seas. Over the last decades, many Western States have put restrictive interception methods into place to prevent migrants from reaching their territories which have been criticized as an attempt to circumvent their human rights obligations. These interception methods include preventing entry by applying restrictive visa regimes, introducing sanctions for private carriers, installing immigration liaison officers in third countries and preventing entry by intercepting and returning migrant boats at the high seas and territorial waters of third States. Interception methods are applied indiscriminately to all migrants without considering possible entitlements to protection. It has frequently been reported that States have stopped migrant boats and returned them to their country of origin without examining any protection claims, which can effectively lead to persons being returned to face torture. Due to the stringently applied interception methods, it has become largely impossible for persons fleeing from torture to seek protection. As a consequence, the strict border management and inaccessibility of protection has led many migrants to take irregular migration routes, seriously endangering their lives. Despite the repeated calls of UN agencies, including OHCHR and UNHCR, as well as regional organs such as the European Union Commission and the continuous campaigning on the part of human rights NGOs to take into account protection concerns when undertaking border controls, States have so far 208 209 210 211 68 in Relation to Maher Arar: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/301/pco-bcp/commissions/maher_arar/0709-13/www.ararcommission.ca/default.htm. United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, “Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft, et al.”, C.A. No. 04-CV-249-DGT-VV, 18 January 2005. A/HRC/13/42. Human Rights Watch, Lost in Transit - Insufficient Protection for Unaccompanied Migrant Children at Roissy Charles de Gaulle Airport, 29 October 2009, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/france1009web_0.pdf. ECtHR, Amuur v. France, 25.06.1996, Application no. 19776/92, para. 52.