- 44 ordered the State to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing. Meanwhile, the State argues that the information obtained by Peru subsequently should be examined, including the new diplomatic assurances and explanations on the applicability of the death penalty to the case of Wong Ho Wing, and it is on this basis that it indicates that is actions fall within its obligation to respect and ensure the rights to life and to personal integrity. 140. The consistent case law of the European Court concerning extradition establishes that, in order to determine the responsibility of a State, the information that the requested State was, or should have been, aware of at the time of the extradition should be analyzed and, in those cases in which extradition has not yet taken place, the information available when the European Court considers the case should be examined.193 141. This Court agrees with this conclusion. The nature of the State’s international responsibility in this type of case, according to the criteria established above, consists in exposing an individual under its jurisdiction to a foreseeable risk of suffering violations of the rights protected by the Convention.194 In this case, the eventual action of the State (the removal of Wong Ho Wing from Peru and his extradition to China) has not occurred, partly owing to the existence of the provisional measures ordered by this Court for the State to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing. Therefore, when analyzing the possible risk that Wong Ho Wing would face in the requesting State, the Court will take into account and assess all the information available at this time, including the legislative developments in China following the second advisory decision of the Supreme Court, as well as the diplomatic assurances presented after the issue of the ruling of the Constitutional Court. The situation of risk that existed when that last ruling was issued will be taken into account, as pertinent and necessary, in the analysis of the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection (infra paras. 193 to 206). 142. The Court also notes that the examination of the State’s responsibility in this case is conditional on the granting and implementation of the eventual extradition. According to Article 62 of the Convention, this Court has jurisdiction to hear all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Convention. Furthermore, Article 44 of the Convention establishes the right to “lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party.” Consequently, it is not normally for this Court to pronounce on the existence of potential violations of the Convention. However, when the presumed victim claims that, if he is expelled or, in this case, extradited, he would be subject to treatment contrary to his rights to life and personal integrity, it is necessary to ensure his rights and to prevent the occurrence of grave and irreparable harm.195 Since the ultimate aim of the Convention 193 Cf. ECHR, Case of Chahal v. The United Kingdom [GS], No. 22414/93. Judgment of November 15, 1996, paras. 86 and 97; H.L.R. v. France [GS], No. 24573/94. Judgment of April 29, 1997, para. 37; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GS], Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99. Judgment of February 4, 2005, para. 69. “The existence of the risk must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State at the time of the expulsion […]. Where the applicant has not yet been expelled, the material point in time is that of the Court’s consideration of the case.” ECHR, Case of Ryabikin v. Russia, No. 8320/04. Judgment of June 19, 2008, para. 111. 194 Similarly, see ECHR, Case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GS], Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99. Judgment of February 4, 2005, para. 69, which establishes that: “Since the nature of the Contracting States' responsibility under Article 3 in cases of this kind lies in the act of exposing an individual to the risk of ill-treatment, the existence of the risk must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State at the time of the extradition […] However, if the applicant has not been extradited or deported when the Court examines the case, the relevant time will be that of the proceedings before the Court […].” 195 Similarly, see: ECHR, Case of Soering v. The United Kingdom, No. 14038/88. Judgment of July 7, 1989, para. 90. In this case, the European Court established that: “It is not normally for the Convention institutions to pronounce on the existence or otherwise of potential violations of the Convention. However, where an applicant claims that a decision to extradite him would, if implemented, be contrary to Article 3 by reason of its foreseeable consequences in the requesting country, a departure from this principle is necessary, in view of the serious and irreparable nature of the alleged suffering risked, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the safeguard provided by that Article 3.”