international refugee law that they should not be returned or expelled pending a final determination of their status. 12 10. The prohibition of return to a danger of persecution under international refugee law is applicable to any form of forcible removal, including extradition, deportation, informal transfer or “renditions”. This is evident from the wording of Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention, which refers to expulsion or return “in any manner whatsoever”. 11. Exceptions to the principle of non-refoulement under the 1951 Convention are permitted only in the circumstances expressly provided for in Article 33(2), which stipulates that “The benefit of [Article 33(1)] 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 [or she] is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.” 12. The application of this provision requires an individualized determination by the country of asylum that the person concerned constitutes a present or future danger to the security or the community of the host country. 13 (i) For the “security of the country” exception to the principle of nonrefoulement to apply, there must be an individualized finding that the refugee poses a current or future danger to the host country. The danger must be very serious, rather than of a lesser order, and it must be a threat to the national security of the host country. 14 (ii) For the danger to the community exception to apply, not only must the refugee in question have been convicted of a crime of a very grave nature, but it must also be established that the refugee, in light of the crime and conviction, constitutes a very serious present or future danger to the community of the host country. The fact that a person has been convicted of a particularly serious crime does not of itself mean that he or she also meets the “danger to the community” requirement. Whether or not this is the case 12 See also below at paragraphs 35–37. Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention will not apply, however, if the removal of a refugee results in a substantial risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. See “Factum of the Intervenor, UNHCR, Suresh v. the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; the Attorney General of Canada, SCC No. 27790” (hereafter: “UNHCR, Suresh Factum”), in 19:1 International Journal of Refugee Law (2002), pp. 141–157; E. Lauterpacht and D. Bethlehem, above footnote 8, at paragraph 159(ii), 166 and 179. 14 See UNHCR, Suresh Factum, above footnote 13, at paragraphs 68–73. See also E. Lauterpacht and D. Bethlehem, above footnote 8, at paragraphs 164–166. See also A. GrahlMadsen, Commentary on the Refugee Convention, Articles 2–11, 13–37, published by UNHCR (1997), commentary to Article 33, at (8), where the discussions of the drafters of the 1951 Convention on this point are summarized as follows: “Generally speaking, the ‘security of the country’ exception may be invoked against acts of a rather serious nature, endangering directly or indirectly the constitution, government, the territorial integrity, the independence, or the external peace of the country concerned.” 13 5