- 56 provided the opinion of expert witness Huawen Li to the case file to underscore the improvements or the new systems for the control, reporting on, and monitoring of the conditions and treatment received by persons detained in China in order to safeguard the prohibition of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as well as to exclude evidence obtained by torture or other acts of violence.233 176. This Court considers that the information on which both the Commission and the representative based themselves refers to the general situation of human rights in China. This is not sufficient to consider that Wong Ho Wing would be at real, foreseeable and personal risk of suffering treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Neither the representative nor the Commission offered arguments, evidence or grounds from which it can be inferred that this general situation creates a personal, individual and specific risk for Wong Ho Wing based on his particular circumstances. The representative referred to information on the human rights situation of individuals accused of terrorism, human rights defenders, those accused of political offenses, and the members of the Uyghur ethnic group, and this bears no relationship to the case of Wong Ho Wing. 177. In addition, and in view of the fact that diplomatic assurances were given in this case, the Court finds that any remaining concerns about the alleged risk of Wong Ho Wing suffering treatment contrary to Article 5 of the American Convention, should be satisfied by the last diplomatic assurance given by China in 2014, which will be examined below. ii) Diplomatic notes and assurances provided by the People’s Republic of China 178. Diplomatic assurances constitute a common practice among States in the context of extradition processes and it is usually presumed that they are given in good faith. Such diplomatic undertakings consist in promises or guarantees given by the requesting State to the requested State that the individual whose extradition is requested will received treatment or punishment in keeping with the international human rights obligations of the requested State.234 When examining cases of return, deportation, extradition or any form of expulsion of individuals from the jurisdiction of a State Party, the European Court, and also the Human Rights Committee, have granted relative value to the diplomatic assurances provided by the States.235 Moreover, when examining the relevance of the diplomatic assurances it is important to bear in mind: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A.HRC.13.39.Add%206_EFS.pdf. 233 This expert witness underscored that the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Law on the People’s Police of the People’s Republic of China contain explicit prohibitions of torture and ill-treatment, and the new Code of Criminal Procedure includes provisions that exclude evidence obtained unlawfully; for example, through torture or other acts of violence, such as threats. In addition, he reported that there are numerous norms which establish the steps to follow when investigating unlawful practices to obtain evidence or forced confessions or the physical punishment of detainees, such as the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Law on Administrative Supervision, the Law on the People’s Police, the Commission for the Disciplinary Supervision and Control of the Public Security Body, and the Organic Law of People’s Prosecutors. In addition, he clarified that rapid channels of communication exist for accusations or reports of torture or ill-treatment; that audio and video records are being promoted in investigation and interrogation procedures, and that frequent physical examinations are performed on detainees. He also highlighted several programs that are being implemented to prevent torture. Cf. Affidavit made by Liu Huawen on August 19, 2014 (evidence file, folios 6787, 6790, 6798, 6799, 6816 to 6818, 6824, 6830 to 6834, 6836 and 6837). 234 According to expert witness Ben Saul, diplomatic assurances or guarantees “are typically political promises, rather than binding legal safeguards, and therefore they must be considered prudently.” Affidavit made by Ben Saul on August 18, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6977). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has indicated that “the term “diplomatic assurances,” as used in the context of the transfer of a person from one State to another, refers to an undertaking by the receiving State to the effect that the person concerned will be treated in accordance with conditions set by the sending State or, more generally, in keeping with its human rights obligations under international law.” Cf. UNHCR Note on Diplomatic Assurances and International Refugee Protection, August 2006, para. 1. 235 In this regard, see ECHR, Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, No. 8139/09. Judgment of January 17,