terrorists. 135 On the contrary they identify persons engaged in terrorist activities, exclude them from refugee status and do not shield them against either criminal prosecution or expulsion, including to their country of origin. While there will be asylum seekers and refugees who may be associated with serious crime, the UNHCR stresses that this does not mean that ‘the majority should be damned by association with the few’.136 Another danger identified by the UNHCR is that States may be inclined to exclude asylum seekers or withdraw refugee status or to expeditiously grant extradition on the assumption that an individual is a terrorist, when the decision is in fact based on religious, ethnic or national origins or political affiliation.137 Merely because asylum seekers have a certain ethnic or religious background which may be shared by those who have committed grave crimes does not mean they themselves, are also to be excluded. In the words of the UNHCR ‘[t]he facts are what count’ and it must be shown that the return of a person is not being sought for purposes which amount to persecution.138 In particular, there is the danger that a bona fide asylum seeker or refugee might be wrongly accused of terrorist acts by his or her country of origin in order to stifle political opposition. Finally, we note that the CAT prohibits refoulement in circumstances where there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.139 In determining whether there are such grounds the competent authorities must take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State 135 Office of the UNHCR (presented by Dr Guillermo Bettochi) “The Events of September 11: Possible Repercussions on Refugees Protection” in Terrorism and International Law: Challenges and Responses (International Institute of Humanitarian Law, San Remo, June 2003) 15. 136 This may have particular reference to the detention of asylum seekers. The Refugees Convention explicitly acknowledges that States may limit the freedom of movement of refugees, for example in exceptional circumstances in the interests of national security (article (9)), or if necessary after illegal entry (article 31(1); although article 31(1) generally prohibits States imposing penalties on refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge. See Guy Goodwin-Gill The Refugee in International Law (2ed, 1996)). The Advisory Council notes here that the UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to Detention of Asylum Seekers (February 1999) in Guideline 2 require a presumption against detention, which, according to Guideline 3, should only be resorted to if necessary in order to verify identity, to deal with cases where refugees or asylum seekers have destroyed documents or have used fraudulent documents in order to mislead the authorities of the State in which they intend to claim asylum, or to protect national security or public order. Guideline 3 goes on to state that where detention is resorted to it should be only for a ‘minimal period’. The Office of the UNHCR in “The Events of September 11: Possible Repercussions on Refugees Protection” (above, at 16), states that detention of asylum seekers should be the exception and not the rule and would only be acceptable when circumstances surrounding the individual case so justify, including where there are solid reasons for suspecting links with terrorism. 137 “The Events of September 11: Possible Repercussions on Refugees Protection”, above, at 18. 138 “The Events of September 11: Possible Repercussions on Refugees Protection”, above, at 17. 139 Article 3(1) CAT. 71