and submission of habeas corpus actions intended to challenge the rulings issued by that higher court. Both the final ruling of the Supreme Court on January 27, 2010 and the decisions on the habeas corpus actions before the constitutional court were issued after the submission of this petition. In this respect, compliance with the requirement established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention is intrinsically tied to exhaustion of the domestic remedies and is thus satisfied. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 43. The file does not indicate that the subject of the petition is pending settlement in another international proceeding nor that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention to have been met. E. Characterization of the alleged facts 44. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition presents facts that could characterize a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order” in accordance with paragraph (c) of that article. The standard for evaluating these points is different from that required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint provides the basis for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. Said examination is a summary analysis that does not entail a prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits. 45. In similar matters, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the European Court”) has indicated that the States Party to the European Convention on Human Rights must adopt the measures necessary to prevent someone subject to extradition from being submitted to cruel and inhumane treatment, torture, or other acts contrary to that regional human rights convention. When examining allegations that an alleged victim could be subjected to such acts, the European Court has taken into account reports from organizations that monitor the human rights situation, governmental sources, and rulings from United Nations committees, concluding in various cases that there was a well-founded risk to the personal integrity of the extraditurus in the requesting country. 8 This analysis has been performed even when the extradition process was suspended due to interim measures 9 issued by one of the Chambers of the European Court 10 and when a final decision to deport a person to his/her country of origin had not been implemented. 11 46. Without prejudging the merits of the matter, the IACHR considers that the allegations regarding inadequate evaluation by the Peruvian authorities of the guarantees provided by the People’s Republic of China that it would not impose the death penalty on Mr. Wong Ho Wing and the possibility that he would be subjected to torture and cruel and inhumane treatment could characterize a failure to comply with the obligations arising from Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention as they relate to Article 1.1 thereof. The IACHR also deems that the adoption of the advisory ruling of January 27, 2010 by the Supreme Court of Justice, allegedly without observing the requirements provided in Peruvian law and without the alleged victim’s having had an effective remedy for presenting the risks to his life and personal integrity, could constitute the possible violation of the rights protected in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention as they relate to Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Wong Ho Wing. 8 European Court of Human Rights, Case N v. Finland, Petition 38885/02, judgment of July 26, 2005 and Case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, Petitions 46827/99 and 46951/99, judgment of February 4, 2005. 9 Article 39.1 of the Rules of the European Court of Human Rights establishes as follows: The Chamber or, where appropriate, its President may, at the request of a party or of any other person concerned, or of its own motion, indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted in the interests of the parties or of the proper conduct of the proceedings before it. 10 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Klein v. Russia, Petition 24268/08, judgment of April 1, 2010, Case of Saadi v. Italy, Petition 37201/06, judgment of February 28, 2008 and Case of Baysakov et al. v. Ukraine, Petition 54131/08, judgment of February 18, 2010. 11 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Venkadajalasarma v. the Netherlands, Petition 58510/00, judgment of February 17, 2004 and Case of Chahal v. United Kingdom, judgment of November 15, 1996. 8