- 49 crimes to which it is applicable, as grounds for the alleged risk to the right to life of Wong Ho Wing in the requesting State, while Peru underscored the progress and improvements made in the requesting State. However, the Court considers that, inasmuch as, currently, the death penalty would not be legally applicable to the offense of smuggling ordinary merchandise in China, this information is not relevant or pertinent, and it is not incumbent on the Court to assess it in this case. B.4) Alleged risk of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment 155. When examining the principle of non-refoulement in relation to possible risks to the rights to life or liberty of an individual, this Court has affirmed that the risk “must be real; in other words, it must be a foreseeable consequence. Thus, the State must make an individualized analysis in order to verify and evaluate the circumstances cited by the individual which reveal that he may suffer harm to his life or liberty in the country to which it is sought to return him (that is, his country of origin), or that, if he is expelled to a third country, he runs the risk of the being sent to the place where he runs this risk. If his explanation that he could face a situation of risk is credible, convincing and coherent, the principle of non-refoulement should be observed.”210 156. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that when an individual alleges before a State Party that there is a risk if he is returned, the competent authorities of that State should, at least, interview him, giving him the opportunity to explain the reasons why he contests the return, and make a prior or preliminary assessment in order to determine whether or not that risk exists and, if it is verified, the individual should not be deported to the country where the risk exists (supra para. 129). 157. In this type of situation, the Human Rights Committee has applied the standard of real risk, according to which any treatment contrary to the Covenant must be a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the extradition,211 while the Committee against Torture has indicated that the risk must be foreseeable, real and personal.212 The European Court has affirmed this standard indicating that substantial grounds must be shown for believing that there is a real risk of suffering treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture and cruel treatment. This Court agrees with these criteria and considers that “to determine the existence of a risk of ill-treatment, the Court must examine the foreseeable consequences of sending the petitioner to the receiving State, bearing in mind the general situation of that State as well as the personal circumstances of the petitioner.”213 158. Both the Commission and the representative argue that the extradition of Wong Ho Wing to China would expose him to treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture or other forms of cruel, 210 Rights and guarantees of children in the context of migration and/or in need of international protection, supra, para. 221. 211 Cf. UN, Human Rights Committee, Case of G.T. v. Australia, Communication No.706/1996, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996, November 4, 1997, para. 8.1, and Case of Mahmoud Walid Nakrash and Liu Qifen v. Sweden, Communication No. 1540/2007, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/94/D/1540/2007, October 30, 2008, para. 7.3. 212 See, inter alia, UN, Committee against Torture, Case of E.A. v. Switzerland, Communication No. 28/1995, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/19/D/28/1995, November 10, 1997, para. 11.5; Case of U.S. v. Finland, Communication No. 197/2002, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/30/D/197/2002, May 1, 2003, para. 7.8; Case of Zare v. Sweden, Communication No. 256/2004, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/36/D/256/2004, May 12, 2006, para. 9.3; Case of Ke Chun Rong v. Australia, Communication No. 416/2010, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/49/D/416/2010, November 5, 2012, para. 7.4, and Case of Y.G.H. et al. v. Australia, Communication No. 434/2010, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/51/D/434/2010, November 14, 2013, para. 8.3. See also, Affidavit made by Ben Saul on August 18, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6960). 213 ECHR, Case of Ryabikin v. Russia, No. 8320/04. Judgment of June 19, 2008, para. 112, and Case of Vilvarajah and Others v. The United Kingdom, Nos. 13163/87, 13164/87, 13165/87 13447/87, and 13448/87. Judgment of October 30, 1991, para. 108.