- 45 is the international protection of human rights, it must be permissible to analyze this type of case before the violation takes place. Therefore, the Court must rule on the possibility that such harm may occur if the person is extradited. Thus, since the extradition has not occurred yet (which would constitute the internationally unlawful act if a foreseeable risk to the rights of Wong Ho Wing existed), the Court must examine the State’s responsibility conditionally, in order to determine whether or not there would be a violation of the rights to life and personal integrity of the presumed victim should he be extradited. 143. The European Court of Human Rights and some United Nations committees, such as the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture, have proceeded similarly.196 Consequently, this Court establishes that, in cases in which extradition or expulsion has not occurred (but in which its acceptance or implementation is imminent), the analysis made by the Court consists in determining whether, based on the information available at the time the InterAmerican Court considers the case, the State was, or should have been, aware that the extradition of the presumed victim, if granted and implemented, would be a violation of the American Convention. 144. The presumed harm to the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention (particularly based on compliance with decisions of the domestic courts), in view of the ruling of the Constitutional Court, will be examined in the following section (infra paras. 193 to 206), and separately from the presumed risk that Wong Ho Wing would face currently if he were to be extradited, for the reasons described supra. 145. Taking into account: (1) the protection standards in extradition processes described above, and (2) the information and guarantees that are currently available, the Court will examine (3) the alleged risk of application of the death penalty, and (4) the alleged risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in order (5) to determine whether the extradition of Wong Ho Wing would result in the State’s international responsibility based on the possible violation of its obligation to ensure the presumed victim’s rights to life and personal integrity. B.3) Alleged risk of application of the death penalty in this case 146. One of the offenses for which Wong Ho Wing is sought called for the death penalty when he was arrested and his extradition was requested. Article 153 of the Chinese Criminal Code established: Smuggling merchandise and objects that are not mentioned in articles 151, 152 and 347 of this Law are punished pursuant to the following provisions, according to the severity: a. Smuggling merchandise and objects where the amount of the duty evaded is in excess of 500,000 yuans is punished by imprisonment for more than 10 years, or life imprisonment, and fines of from 100% to 500% of the amount of the duty evaded, or seizure of personal property; 196 In this regard, see: the European Court, inter alia, ECHR, Case of Ryabikin v. Russia, No.8320/04. Judgment of June 19, 2008, para. 115; Case of Hilal v. The United Kingdom, No.45276/99. Judgment of March 6, 2001, para. 68; Case of Venkadajalasarma v. The Netherlands, No. 58510/00, Judgment of February 17, 2004, para. 69, and Case of Jabari v. Turkey, No. 40035/98. Judgment of July 11, 2000, para. 42. The Human Rights Committee, inter alia, Case of Mehrez Ben Abde Hamida v. Canada, Communication No.1544/2007, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/98/D/1544/2007, March 18, 2010, para. 8.6, 8.7 and 9; Case of G.T. v. Australia, Communication No.706/1996, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996, November 4, 1997, para. 8.2 and 8.3, and Case of Thuraisamy v. Canada, Communication No. 1912/2009, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1912/2009, October 31, 2012, para. 8. The Committee against Torture, inter alia, Case of v. N. I. M. v. Canada, Communication No.119/1998, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/40/D/293/2006, November 12, 2002, para. 8; Case of Attia v. Sweden, Communication No. 199/2002, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/31/D/199/2002, November 17, 2003, para. 12.3; Case of Ke Chung Rong v. Australia, Communication No.416/2010, CAT/C/49/D/416/2010, November 5, 2013, para. 7.5.