- 53 - 167. In order to determine whether the presumed victim would face a real, foreseeable and personal risk if he is extradited, the Court must examine all the information available and consider all relevant circumstances. To determine whether there is a risk of torture of other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, it must examine the relevant conditions in the requesting State, the specific circumstances of the presumed victim and, as an additional factor, the diplomatic assurances, if these have been provided.220 The Court will now analyze: (i) the alleged situation of risk in the requesting State and (ii) the diplomatic assurances provided. 168. The State has argued, with regard to the need to examine the human rights situation in the requesting State, as well as to how the diplomatic assurances are assessed that, “there are no international standards for extradition,” and that it was in the Merits Report that the Commission first “ruled on what it considered were the international standards as regards diplomatic assurances to guarantee the life and integrity of a person in relation to an extradition request.” However, despite the inexistence of specific inter-American case law on extradition, this Court notes that the obligations of the States Parties to the Convention result from the American Convention and not from the Court’s case law.221 i) Alleged situation of risk in the requesting State 169. When examining the alleged situation of risk in the requesting State, the Court must necessarily examine the conditions in the destination country which are the grounds for the alleged risk, and compare the information presented with the standards derived from the American Convention. Nevertheless, the Court notes that this does not mean that it is judging the conditions in the destination country or signify that it is establishing responsibility with regard to the requesting State; particularly when the latter is not a State Party to the Convention. When establishing violations by means of this analysis in the context of processes of extradition, any liability incurred will correspond to the State Party to the Convention, whose act or omission exposed or would expose an individual under its jurisdiction to a risk contrary to the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.222 170. The State objected to certain information used by the Inter-American Commission as grounds for the presumed situation of risk to human rights in the requesting State. Specifically, it noted that “the situations observed by some United Nations human rights treaty bodies, as well as some thematic rapporteurs, [cited by the Commission, refer to] previous years and not […] necessarily to the reality today.” When determining the relevant conditions in the People’s Republic of China, the Court will take this observation by the State into account. 220 In the Othman case, the European Court established that: “In any examination of whether an applicant faces a real risk of ill-treatment in the country to which he is to be removed, the Court will consider both the general human rights situation in that country and the particular characteristics of the applicant. In a case where assurances have been provided by the receiving State, those assurances constitute a further relevant factor which the Court will consider. ECHR, Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, No. 8139/09. Judgment of January 17, 2012, para. 187. 221 Mutatis mutandi, regarding the standards relating to military criminal justice, see: Case of Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 241, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, paras. 444 and 445. 222 Similarly, the European Court has indicated that: “The establishment of such responsibility inevitably involves an assessment of conditions in the requesting country against the standards of Article 3 of the Convention. Nonetheless, there is no question of adjudicating on or establishing the responsibility of the receiving country, whether under general international law, under the Convention or otherwise. In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment”. ECHR, Case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GS], Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99. Judgment of February 4, 2005, para. 67.