- 37 binding. As has been shown and explained, the final decision in this regard falls to the Executive Branch and, to date, it has not ruled. 116. The Commission and the representative argue that, if he had been extradited, Wong Ho Wing would have been exposed – and still is to a certain extent – to different types of risk in the requesting State, particularly with regard to his right to life, owing to the possibility of the imposition of the death penalty; his right to personal integrity, owing to a presumed risk of being subjected to torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and, to a lesser degree, owing to a risk of presumed irregularities and violations of due process in the requesting State. 117. In this regard, in May 2011, the Constitutional Court issued a binding prima facie decision ordering the Executive Branch to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing, considering that a risk to his life persisted if he was extradited, because the concerns about the possibility that the death penalty would be imposed if he was convicted had not been fully dispelled. 118. In principle this constitutional ruling would prevent the presumed victim’s extradition, so that much of this dispute between the parties would be pointless. However, the Court notes that the position of the State before this Court questions the conclusions of that ruling, as well as the scope and interpretation that should be given to it. Therefore, the Court observes that, in this case, the dispute between the parties subsists in relation to the possibility of extraditing Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China, owing to the alleged risk of violation of his rights in the requesting State, as well as owing to the May 2011 order of the Constitutional Court. 119. This Court emphasizes, as it has in previous cases although in other contexts, the importance of the mechanism of extradition and the obligation of the States to collaborate in this regard. 167 It is in the interests of the community of Nations that individuals who have been accused of certain offenses may be brought to justice. However, the Court notes that, in the context of extradition processes or other forms of international judicial cooperation, the States Parties to the Convention must observe the human rights obligations arising from this instrument. Thus, the international human rights obligations of the States and the requirements of due process must be observed in extradition proceedings, and this legal mechanism cannot be used as a path or impunity.168 120. In order to determine the possible responsibility of the State for the eventual extradition of Wong Ho Wing, in this chapter the Court will analyze the obligation to ensure the right to life and to personal integrity of the presumed victim, together with the obligation to respect the principle of non-refoulement in case of extradition, when there is an alleged risk of harm to those rights. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 121. The Commission argued that, in this case there are three different levels of risk for Wong Ho Wing: a risk as regards the legal imposition of the death penalty for one of the offenses for which his extradition was requested; a risk of the clandestine or secret application of the death penalty, and a risk of the application of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Consequently, it 167 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 132; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, paras. 159 and 160; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of July 7, 2009, considerandum 19, and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, consideranda 40 and 41. 168 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, considerandum 16, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to the Republic of Peru. Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, considerandum 13.