A/HRC/4/40 page 19 39. The Working Group finds it useful to recall two fundamental principles that international law provides in this respect: first, the preference for criminal justice as instrument to hold perpetrators of terrorist acts accountable and render them harmless; secondly, the principle of non-refoulement. C. Preference for criminal justice and extradition proceedings 40. The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings,4 which counts 145 States parties, constitutes a useful starting point for this inquiry. The Convention provides that a State on whose territory a person suspected of a terrorist bombing crime is found must either prosecute the suspect or extradite him to another State willing to prosecute (art. 8 (1)). Furthermore, “[u]pon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant, the State Party in whose territory the offender or alleged offender is present shall take the appropriate measures under its domestic law so as to ensure that person’s presence for the purpose of prosecution or extradition” (art. 7 (2)), which under many circumstances will be arresting the suspect. The Convention contains numerous other provisions aimed at strengthening the obligation to cooperate through extradition proceedings and international judicial assistance. 41. The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation,5 the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages,6 the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents,7 and other anti-terrorism conventions ratified by a large majority of Member States of the United Nations all unmistakably enshrine the same principle: suspected terrorists must be prosecuted or extradited for prosecution in another country. These conventions, which the Security Council in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks urged all countries that had not already done so to ratify, do not contemplate prolonged administrative detention as an alternative to criminal justice, nor do they envisage formless “renditions” as an alternative to the guarantees of extradition proceedings.8 4 This Convention entered into force on 23 May 2001. As of 1 January 2006, the Convention had 148 parties. 5 Entered into force on 26 January 1973. To date, the Convention has 183 parties. 6 Entered into force on 3 June 1983. To date, the Convention has 153 parties. 7 Entered into force on 20 February 1977. To date, the Convention has 159 parties (see, in particular, article 7). 8 On the contrary, article 8 of the Diplomatic Agents Convention, for example, endeavours to make the Convention a sufficient basis for extradition where extradition would otherwise not be possible under the domestic laws of one of the two countries.