Abstract
The aim of this paper is to focus on protection of national security in relation to the creation of different types of standards of protection of human rights for a specific group of individuals, especially for returned terror suspects. In this sense, the principal question is whether the protection of national security justifies parallel regimes with different rules for these persons from a perspective of international law? The paper primarily analyses returns of unwanted persons back to their country of origin based on so-called diplomatic assurances due to national security reasons and possible responsibility of States under the principle of non-refoulement.
One of the arguments against this practice is that it creates parallel regime for ""privileged - returned"" individuals based on bilateral agreements. However, the paper will argue that a similar parallel regime with its double standards is already part of international law and exists under the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees; refugees are saved while others are not.
It will also consider whether we can defend double standards with regard to the development of international law, especially with respect to the evolution of positive obligations imposed on States to protect specific individuals and public against dangerous individuals?