Assessing Damage, Urging Action supported by Italy as respondent government) argued that the non-refoulement principle should not be absolute. They claimed that when foreign nationals are thought to constitute a threat to national security, the principle of non-refoulement allows for some measure of balancing of competing rights, even when there is a risk of the person being tortured on their return. Canada also has insisted that Article 3 (1) of the UN Convention against Torture,244 does not prevent the authorities, in exceptional circumstances, from deporting individuals who pose a security risk. The Government bases its stance on the Canadian Supreme Court ruling in Suresh v. Canada.245 In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the specific deportation case, but did not exclude the possibility that, in exceptional circumstances, deportation to countries where a person risked torture might be justified.246 The Government of Canada has subsequently used the 2002 decision in Suresh to allude to a balancing test by which they can justify deportation or expulsion in specific circumstances, even if this violates the principle of non-refoulement. The Panel believes that governments claiming to “balance” the rights of the individual at risk of torture upon return and the supposed needs of society as a whole are working on a false premise. Many human rights compete, and a balancing between majority and minority interests is often required of States (see discussion in Chapter One). This is not, however, a relevant consideration when there is a risk of torture: all international law places an absolute prohibition on torture. The special status and absolute prohibition on torture are ignored when governments claim that they have to balance the risk of torture against other public policy considerations. In making this assertion, the Panel is of course doing nothing more than invoking the many international and regional rulings that have consistently rejected the idea of a balancing test in the matter of the prohibition of torture and cruel and inhuman or 244 See Article 3, para. 1 of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment: “No state party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. 245 Supreme Court of Canada, Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2002 SCC 1, 11 January 2002. 246 The Canadian Supreme Court stated: “We do not exclude the possibility that in exceptional circumstances, deportation to face torture might be justified. Insofar as Canada is unable to deport a person where there are substantial grounds to believe he or she would be tortured on return, this is not because Article 3 of the CAT directly constrains the actions of the Canadian Government, but because the fundamental justice balance under section 7 of the Charter generally precludes deportation to torture when applied on a case by case basis. We may predict that it will rarely be struck in favour of expulsion where there is a serious risk of torture. The ambit of an exceptional discretion to deport to torture, if any, must await future cases” (Suresh v. Canada, Ibid., para. 78). 103