2.2 The Principles of Refugee Protection

2.2.1 Principle of Non-refoulement The core (the regime's cornerstone): the no-return (the return-prohibition to persecution- territory — the 1951's Art 33); the prohibition's forms (the rejection-at-the-border (the entry's refusal's debate); the expulsion-and-return; the indirect (the chain-refoulement to the third state)); the customary claim (the exam's debate): the jus cogens argument's spectrum (the UNHCR's position vs the states' reservations (the 1951's 33(2) exception: the danger-to-the-community)); the HR-treaty reinforcement: the CAT's Art 3 (the removal-to-torture's absolute bar (no exception)); the ICCPR's non-refoulement faces (the 6-and-7-type removal risks). The ECtHR prescribed cases (cited verbatim; the famous line): Chahal v. The United Kingdom (70/1995/576/662, ECtHR, 15 November 1996) — the Art 3 absolute bar's classic (the suspected-terrorist's non-return: the security-risk vs the torture-risk balance refused — the absolute character); Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (Application no. 27765/09, ECtHR, 23 February 2012) — the maritime push-backs' case (the sea-interception-and-return-to-Libya: the extraterritorial jurisdiction + the collective-expulsion violation + the non-refoulement at sea); Al- Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom (Application no. 61498/08, ECtHR, 2 March 2010) — the transfer-to-custody risk (the Iraqi detainees' handover: the death-penalty-risk-and-Art 3). 2.2.2 Principle of Privacy The refugee's private-and-family-life (the ECHR-Art-8-type faces; the information's confidentiality (the disclosure-to-origin-state's bar — the protection's quiet duty)); the camp-and-urban privacy's practical faces. 2.2.3 Principle of Non-penalization for Illegal Entry or Stay The 1951's Art…