ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A(1) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality; as the source of the current dispute, which was not only directed at the Ethiopian refugees in Sudan, but to Ethiopian refugees elsewhere in the world. The Respondent State argues that indeed the UNHCR had issued similar Cessation Clauses in the past for other refugees from Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Chile, when the situation in those countries normalised. The Respondent State submitted that since Sudan hosts a large number of Ethiopian refugees, to avoid the consequences which a hasty implementation would cause to the refugees and to the Sudanese as well, it requested the Third Committee of the United Nations in New York for a gradual implementation of the Cessation Clause to the Ethiopian refugees in the Sudan. 138. The Respondent State states that a Tripartite Agreement between Sudan, Ethiopia and the UNHCR was executed in 1993. Under this Agreement a programme of voluntary repatriation began to be implemented in 1993 and continued into 1998. The Respondent State submits further that, according to this Agreement, 720,000 refugees returned voluntarily. However, at the end of the programme, a considerable number of the refugees remained in the Sudan. 139. The Respondent State stated that, both Ethiopia and Sudan requested the UNHCR on 29th December 1999 and 1st February 2000 respectively for a postponement of the repatriation due to the outbreak of the war with Eritrea. The Respondent State, Ethiopia and the UNHCR later concluded another Tripartite Agreement on 25th August 2000 to repatriate refugees at the end of the war with Eritrea, and the end of the rainy season. 140. The August 2000 agreement provided, inter alia, for transport modalities, provision of return packages for the returnees, such as cups, blankets, food allowances and other non food items. It also established a mechanism for a residual caseload of individuals with compelling reasons for international protection, and those who for social and economic reasons wished to remain in Sudan. 141. A screening process was carried out jointly by the Sudanese Commission on Refugees and the UNHCR to determine those who continued to need international protection. It was agreed that the regularisation for those wishing to remain in Sudan was a matter for bilateral discussion between the two governments. The screening process was envisaged to end in November 2000. Repatriation would be conducted between 1st and 31st December 2000, since food and funding would not be available in 2001. The implementation for repatriation was delayed to a later date (14th March 2001) to allow for proper implementation and assessment. 142. The Respondent State argues that the UNHCR brought in the best cadres serving in different parts of the world to take part in this exercise, so as to ensure equity and justice. The Respondent State submits that the repatriation was voluntary. It denies that any refugees were imprisoned, tortured or were subjected to involuntary return. It submits further that no person was denied social services, such as medical care, food or shelter. Assistance was extended to refugees throughout up to their final place of residence. Those remaining were assisted until all phases of the implementation of the cessation clause were exhausted, including the reconciliation of their legal status. 143. The Respondent State submitted further that of those who did not opt for voluntary repatriation, 282 were granted protection, while 2753 were not. The determination was done in accordance with the 1977 UNHCR Executive Committee (EXCOM) decision, which requires Member States to adopt comprehensive procedures to ensure that asylum seekers are given adequate time to make an appeal for reconsideration of a decision to accredit them, to the same committee or another authority. 144. By June 2001, the Respondent State had registered 7,072 Ethiopians from both the 1993 to 1998, and the 2000 repatriation phases and issued them with an annually renewable residence permits, pursuant to UNHCR Executive Committee (EXCOM) decision No 69, which requires Member States implementing the cessation clause to make appropriate arrangements to enable persons expected to leave the country to take care of strong family and other social and economic engagements. 145. The Respondent State drew that attention of the Commission to the date the communication was received at the Commission's Secretariat on the 22nd February 2000. It submitted that the Communication was received prior to the date of the implementation of the Cessation clause. The Respondent State submitted that "10,000 Ethiopian refugees actually returned to their country voluntarily in the wake of the implementation of the clause... ." It argues that such returnees cannot be deemed to be included in the communication. 12