73 obligations that also extend to foreign nationals within its jurisdiction. In the specific case of Peru, this obligation is even more evident not only because of the text of Article 4 of the American Convention as interpreted in the preceding paragraphs, but also as a consequence of its own extradition laws which expressly require assurances that the death penalty will not be applied (see supra. Facts established. The laws on the subject of extradition in Peru, Article 517(3)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Concerning the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the principle of nonrefoulement and the attribution of responsibility to States for a person’s deportation or extradition 228. The petitioner indicated in his Communications that in China there is a risk of application of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment. The State did not respond to such argument. 229. The principle of non-refoulement is a far-reaching principle within the inter-American human rights system, under the provisions of the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. In the American Convention, the principle of nonrefoulement is a corollary of the absolute ban on torture, established in Article 5; it is also provided for in Article 22(8), under which no person may be extradited if his or her right to life or personal integrity is in danger of being violated because of his or her race, nationality, religion, social status or political opinion. For its part, Article 13(4) of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture expressly recognizes the principle of non-refoulement, where it provides that extradition shall not be granted nor shall the person sought be returned when there are grounds to believe that his life is in danger, that he will be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or that he will be tried by special or ad hoc courts in the requesting State. 230. As it pertains to the instant case, the principle of non-refoulement based on the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is understood to be an absolute ban on the expulsion, return, extradition, or transfer, by whatever means, of a person to a country, whether or not it is said person’s country of origin, where he or she may face such violations. 231. The interpretation by the United Nations Committee against Torture is that “the test of article 3 of the Convention is absolute. Whenever substantial grounds exist for believing that an individual would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon expulsion to another State, the State party is under obligation not to return the person concerned to that State. The nature of the activities in which the person concerned engaged cannot be a material consideration when making a determination under article 3 of the Convention,”201 nor can his immigration status. Also, the principle of nonrefoulement refers not just to the country in which the person faces the risk of real danger of torture; it extends to any other country where he or she would face the real risk of being expelled or returned to the country in which he or she would be subjected to torture or in which he or she can be subjected to torture.202 201 See, UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), Gorki Ernesto Tapia Paez v. Sweden, CAT/C/18/D/39/1996, 28 April 1997, Paragraph 14.5; and UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), Case of Seid Mortesa Aemei v Switzerland, 29 May 1997, Communication No 34/1995, CAT/C/18/D/34/199, Paragraph 9.8. 202 See, UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), Balabou Mutombo v. Switzerland, CAT/C/12/D/013/1993, 27 April 1994, paragraph 10.