EC/50/SC/CRP.17 page 4 refoulement or prolonged detention. The refusal of the first country of asylum to readmit irregular movers may also put refugees “in orbit”, without any country ultimately assuming responsibility for examining their claim. Current efforts to increase cooperation between States for the purposes of intercepting and returning irregular migrants also fail to provide adequate safeguards for the protection of asylum-seekers and refugees. In UNHCR’s view, it is therefore crucial to ensure that interception measures are implemented with due regard to the international legal framework and States’ international obligations. III. THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK 20. International law provides important parameters for States undertaking interception as a means to combat irregular migration. Reference to these parameters is to be found within a complex framework of existing and emerging international legal principles deriving from international maritime law, criminal law, the law of State responsibility, human rights law and, in particular, international refugee law. A. International refugee law (i) Interception and non-refoulement 21. The fundamental principle of non-refoulement reflects the commitment of the international community to ensure that those in need of international protection can exercise their right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, as proclaimed in Article 14 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It applies whenever a State or one of its agents contemplates the return of persons “in any manner whatsoever” to territories where they may be subjected to persecution, 5 irrespective of whether or not they have been formally recognized as refugees. The overriding importance of the observance of non-refoulement – both at the border and within the territory of a State has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Executive Committee which has also recognized that the principle 6 is progressively acquiring the character of a peremptory rule of international law. 22. The direct removal of a refugee or an asylum-seeker to a country where he or she fears persecution is not the only manifestation of refoulement. The removal of a refugee from one country to a third country which will subsequently send the refugee onward to the place of feared persecution constitutes indirect refoulement, for which several countries may bear joint responsibility. 23. The principle of non-refoulement does not imply any geographical limitation. In UNHCR’s understanding, the resulting obligations extend to all government agents acting in an official capacity, within or outside national territory. Given the practice of States to intercept persons at great distance from their own territory, the international refugee protection regime would be rendered ineffective if States’ agents abroad were free to act at variance with obligations under international refugee law and human rights law. (ii) Interception and illegal entry 24. The indiscriminate application by States of interception measures to asylum-seekers derives from the assumption that genuine refugees should depart from their country of origin or from countries of first asylum in an orderly manner. However, some countries of origin impose strict exit control measures, which makes it difficult for refugees to leave their countries legally. 25. The fact that asylum-seekers and refugees may not be able to respect immigration procedures and to enter another country by legal means has been taken into account by the drafters of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Article 31 (1) of the 1951 Convention prohibits the penalization of refugees for illegal entry or presence, provided they come directly from countries where their life was threatened and show “good cause” for violating applicable entry laws. 5 6 Conclusion No. 6 (XXVIII) of 1977 (A/AC.96/549, para.53(4)). Conclusion No. 25 (XXXIII) of 1982 (A/AC.96/614, para.70(1)).