- 40 - 126. Regarding the right to life, the Court recalls that, even though the Convention does not expressly prohibit the application of the death penalty, this Court has established that the relevant provisions of the Convention should be interpreted in the sense of “definitively limiting its application and its sphere, so that it is progressively reduced, until it is eliminated completely.”175 Therefore, the provisions of the Convention in relation to the application of the death penalty should be interpreted in light of the pro persona principle; that is, in favor of the individual.176 The imposition of this punishment is subject to certain procedural guarantees and compliance with them must be strictly observed and reviewed.177 Owing to the exceptionally serious and irreversible nature of the death penalty, the possibility of imposing or applying it is subject to certain procedural requirements, compliance with which must be strictly observed and reviewed.178 127. With regard to the right to humane treatment or personal integrity, this Court has already indicated that Article 5 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations erga omnes to respect and ensure respect for the norms for the protection of human rights, reveals the obligation of the State not to deport, return, expel, extradite or remove in any other way an individual subject to its jurisdiction to another State, or to a third State that is not safe, when there are grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.179 128. Additionally, the inter-American system includes a specific treaty, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which refers to the principle of non-refoulement as follows: “Extradition shall not be granted nor shall the person sought be returned when there are substantial 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.” In addition, as it is regulated, the principle is also associated with protection of the right to life and certain judicial guarantees, so that it is not restricted merely to protection against torture. Added to this, it is not enough that States abstain from violating this principle, it is also essential that they adopt positive measures. In situations in which an individual is faced with a risk of torture the principle of non-refoulement is absolute.180 representative argued a presumed violation of this provision. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the presumed victims or their representatives may cite the violation of other rights than those included in the Commission’s Merits Report, provided that they abide by the facts contained in that document (supra para. 35). 175 Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 99, and Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, para. 52. Cf. Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4.2 and 4.4 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, para. 57. 176 Cf. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados, supra, para. 52, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 204, para. 49. 177 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 79, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra, para. 47. See also Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4.2 and 4.4 American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 55, and The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 135. 178 Cf. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados, supra, para. 50, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra, para. 84. Cf. Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4.2 and 4.4 American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 55. 179 Cf. Rights and guarantees of children in the context of migration and/or in need of international protection. Advisory Opinion OC-21/14 of August 19, 2014. Series A No. 21, para. 226. 180 Cf. Rights and guarantees of children in the context of migration and/or in need of international protection, supra, paras. 225, 227 and 236.