- 43 avoid the extradition, return or expulsion of any individual under their jurisdiction who has suffered or runs the risk of suffering a flagrant denial of justice in the State of destination.189 However, this Court notes that the representative’s arguments about a risk of violation of due process in the requesting State refer mainly to the presumed use of evidence obtained under torture and to the absence of the safeguards required by the American Convention in proceedings that could conclude with the imposition of the death penalty. Therefore, the Court will examine this alleged risk when making the relevant considerations on the presumed risk of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as well as on the alleged risk of the imposition of the death penalty and, if pertinent, it will include the corresponding conclusions in relation to a possible flagrant denial of justice in the requesting State. 137. In addition, this Court underlines that, for the purposes of this case, some of the said obligations arising from the Convention are also established in the Peruvian State’s domestic laws. Specifically, article 517 of Peru’s Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that extradition shall not be ordered when “[t]he offense for which extradition is requested bears the death penalty in the requesting State and the latter has not provided assurances that it will not be applied.”190 138. Also, article 516 of this Code conditions granting extradition “to the existence of assurances that justice will be imparted fairly in the requesting State.”191 Meanwhile, although the Extradition Treaty between China and Peru does not establish specific rules with regard to the death penalty or possible risk of treatment contrary to personal integrity, its article 5 does establish, as a condition for the extradition, that: “Extradition shall only be carried out if it is not contrary to the legal system of the Requested Party.”192 B.2) Nature of the international responsibility of the State in this case and information to be considered by the Court 139. The parties differ as regards the moment and the information that must be examined by the Court in order to analyze this case. According to the Commission and the representative, the State’s acts and omissions during the extradition proceedings constitute “violations that have been committed” of the American Convention and the situation must be examined based on the information obtained by the State that was available to the judicial authorities when the Supreme Court issued the opinion that the extradition was admissible and when the Constitutional Court 189 In this regard, the European Court has indicated that: “It is established in the Court's case-law that an issue might exceptionally be raised under Article 6 by an expulsion or extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive had suffered or risked suffering a flagrant denial of justice in the requesting country. […] In the Court's case-law, the term "flagrant denial of justice" has been synonymous with a trial which is manifestly contrary to the provisions of Article 6 or the principles embodied therein. […] [C]ertain forms of unfairness could amount to a flagrant denial of justice, includ[ing]: conviction in absentia with no possibility subsequently to obtain a fresh determination of the merits of the charge; a trial which is summary in nature and conducted with a total disregard for the rights of the defence; detention without any access to an independent and impartial tribunal to have the legality the detention reviewed; deliberate and systematic refusal of access to a lawyer, especially for an individual detained in a foreign country. […] A flagrant denial of justice goes beyond mere irregularities or lack of safeguards in the trial procedures such as might result in a breach of Article 6 if occurring within the Contracting State itself. What is required is a breach of the principles of fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 which is so fundamental as to amount to a nullification, or destruction of the very essence, of the right guaranteed by that article.” ECHR, Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, No. 8139/09. Judgment of January 17, 2012, para. 258 to 260. 190 Code of Criminal Procedure, promulgated by Legislative Decree No. 957 of July 29, 2004, article 517. Available at: http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Decretoslegislativos/00957.pdf, cited in the Commission’s Merits Report, folio 24. 191 Code of Criminal Procedure, promulgated by Legislative Decree No. 957 of July 29, 2004, article 516. Available at: http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Decretoslegislativos/00957.pdf, cited in the Commission’s Merits Report, folio 24. 192 Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Peru and the People’s Republic of China, article 5 (evidence file, folio 1634).