- 51 international and non-governmental organizations indicating and describing practices contrary to the prohibition of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in China.216 162. In this regard, the Court takes note of the European Court’s case law, according to which, although, “in principle, the petitioner must provide the evidence that proves the existence of substantial grounds for believing that, [if he is extradited] he would be exposed to a real risk of being subject to treatment contrary to Article 3,” it is for the requested State “to dispel any concerns” when evidence has been presented in this regard. The European Court has also affirmed that “[i]n determining whether substantial grounds have been shown for believing that a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 exists, if he is extradited, the Court will assess the issue in the light of all the material placed before it and, if necessary, material obtained on its own motion.”217 163. The Court considers that, owing to the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture, the specific obligation not to extradite when there is a risk of treatment contrary to personal integrity established in Article 13(4) of the ICPPT and the obligation of all States Parties to the American Convention to take all necessary measures to prevent torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the States Parties to the Convention must assess this possibility effectively during their extradition proceedings when this risk is alleged by those subject to extradition.218 The same international authorities can obtain access to the Chinese prison system, which is completely unreliable and discredited.” He added that the presumed victim, “would be executed or kept in physical conditions that would entail a grave and progressive deterioration of his health in order to shorten his life.” Application for habeas corpus of February 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 189 and 192); (iii) in a statement made before the 42nd Special Criminal Court of Lima on February 11, 2010, the representative indicated that: “The possibility exists that […] it is decided to extradite the said person, subject of the extradition request, to the People’s Republic of China and, once he has been returned to that country, he will be sentenced to death in summary proceedings or else subjected to inhuman prison conditions that place his health and life in grave danger, as has happened on numerous occasions with thousands of people who are either executed or subjected to cruel and infrahuman treatment. What I have described has been reiterated in different reports of Amnesty International and other international agencies that indicate, among other matters, that last year more than 10,000 people were executed in China following summary proceedings during which their procedural guarantees were not respected, and in which the execution was carried out on the same day as the sentence.” Preliminary statement by Luis Alberto Lamas Puccio on February 11, 2010, before the 42nd Special Criminal Court of Lima (evidence file, folios 8485 and 8486), and (iv) also, following the second advisory decision of the Supreme Court, during the hearing before the Constitutional Court of November 17, 2010, the representative indicated that “vast information can be found on the Internet about the precarious conditions of those deprived of their liberty in that country [China] and, in many cases, they are cut off, in a totally inhuman manner, from basic nutrition so that they weaken and can die sooner.” He also indicated that he would be “unable to control whether or not this person [Wong Ho Wing] has been executed or subjected to inhuman treatment, which was also mentioned in the Inter-American Commission’s report.” Video of the hearing before the Constitutional Court of November 17, 2010 (evidence file, folio 7375). 216 The National Human Rights Coordinator, a coalition of Peruvian non-governmental organizations presented an amicus curiae brief to the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court noting some irregularities concerning the risk of the death penalty, as well as the way it was implemented, and about the alleged risk of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Cf. Amicus curiae of the National Human Rights Coordinator of Peru presented on October 2, 2009 (evidence file, folios 2095 to 2114). In addition, the representative provided relevant parts of 2007 and 2008 reports of Amnesty International in the domestic proceedings, which reveal information on the alleged risk of torture (evidence file, folios 8420 and 8422). 217 ECHR, Case of N. v. Finland, No. 38885/02. Judgment of July 26, 2005, para. 167; Case of Ryabikin v. Russia, No. 8320/04. Judgment of June 19, 2008, para. 112; Case of Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, No. 31890/11. Judgment of October 3, 2013, para. 108; Case of Saadi v. Italy [GS], No. 37201/06. Judgment of February 28, 2008, para. 128; Case of Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, No. 15576/89. Judgment of March 20, 1991, paras. 75 and 76; 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. 107, and Case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GS], Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99. Judgment of February 4, 2005, para. 69. Also, the European Court has indicated that: “the Court must be satisfied that the assessment made by the authorities of the Contracting State is adequate and sufficiently supported by domestic material as well as by material originating from other reliable and objective sources such as, for instance, other Contracting or non-Contracting States, agencies of the United Nations and reputable non-governmental organisations. […] Accordingly, the Court will first assess in detail the relevant arguments raised by the applicant in the extradition proceedings and the consideration given to them by the competent authorities.” Case of Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, No.31890/11. Judgment of October 3, 2013, paras. 108 and 114, and Cf. Case of Salah Sheekh v. The Netherlands, No.1948/04. Judgment of January 11, 2007, para. 136, and Case of Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, No.2947/06. Judgment of April 24, 2008. para. 120. 218 The Human Rights Committee has ruled similarly in several decisions in individual cases, stating that it is not possible to