- 42 when there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.186 133. Meanwhile, the European Court has established repeatedly that the expulsion or extradition of a person under the jurisdiction of a State Party may engage its international responsibility “where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question, if expelled, would face a real risk of being subject to treatment contrary to” the prohibition of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.187 Also, with regard to the death penalty, this Court has indicated that Article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which recognizes the right to life, and Article 1 of its Protocol No. 13 concerning the abolition of the death penalty in any circumstance, prohibit the extradition or deportation of an individual to another State when substantial grounds exist for believing that he could be subjected to the death penalty.188 134. Taking into account all the preceding considerations and based on the facts of this case, the Court establishes that, pursuant to the obligation to ensure the right to life, States that have abolished the death penalty may not expose an individual under their jurisdiction to the real and foreseeable risk of its application and, therefore, may not expel, by deportation or extradition, persons under their jurisdiction, if it can be reasonably anticipated that they may be sentenced to death, without requiring guarantees that the death sentence would not be carried out. Furthermore, the States Parties to the Convention that have not abolished the death penalty may not jeopardize, by deportation or extradition, the life of any person under their jurisdiction who runs a real and foreseeable risk of being sentenced to death, unless this is for the most serious crimes for which the death penalty is currently imposed in the requested State Party. Consequently, States that have not abolished the death penalty may not expel anyone under their jurisdiction, by deportation or extradition, who may face the real and foreseeable risk of the application of the death penalty for offenses that are not punished with the same sanction within their jurisdiction, without requiring the necessary and sufficient assurances that this punishment will not be applied. 135. In addition, the obligation to ensure the right to personal integrity, together with the principle of non-refoulement recognized in Article 13(4) of the ICPPT, imposes on States the obligation not to expel, by extradition, any individual under their jurisdiction when there are substantial grounds for believing that he will face a real, foreseeable and personal risk of suffering treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 136. The Court takes note that, during the domestic extradition process, the representative also alleged that certain characteristics of the judicial proceedings in China would constitute violations of due process. In this regard, the States Parties to the Convention also have the obligation to 186 The application of Article 3 of the Convention against Torture is restricted to cases in which there are well-founded reasons to believe that the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Cf. UN, Committee against Torture. General Comment No. 1: Implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the Context of Article 22, U.N. Doc. CAT, A/53/44, November 21, 1997, para. 1. 187 Cf. ECHR, Case of Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, No. 36378/02. Judgment of April 12, 2005, para. 335, citing: Case of Chahal v. The United Kingdom [GS], No. 22414/93. Judgment of November 15, 1996, paras. 73 and 74; Case of Soering v. The United Kingdom, No. 14038/88. Judgment of July 7, 1989, paras. 34 to 36, and Case of Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, No. 15576/89. Judgment of March 20, 1991, paras. 69 and 70. Similarly, see inter alia, Case of Saadi v. Italy [GS], No. 37201/06. Judgment of February 28, 2008, para. 125; Case of Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, No. 31890/11, Judgment of October 3, 2013, para. 105, and Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, No. 8139/09. Judgment of January 17, 2012, para. 185. 188 Cf. ECHR, Case of Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. The United Kingdom, No.61498/08. Judgment of March 2, 2010, para. 123; Case of Hakizimana v. Sweden, No. 37913/05, Decision of March 27, 2008, and Case of Kaboulov v. Ukraine, No. 41015/04. Judgment of November 19, 2009, para. 99.