- 64 consequently, one of its effects is its binding nature or the need to comply with it.265 Otherwise, there would be a denial of the right concerned.266 197. In this regard, Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention establishes the right “that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.” 198. The Court has indicated that State have the obligation to ensure the means to execute such final decision.267 Effective mechanisms must exist to execute the decisions or judgments so that they truly protect the rights that have been declared.268 In addition, the Court has established that the effectiveness of a judgment depends on its execution. The proceedings must attempt to implement the protection of the right recognized in the legal ruling by the appropriate execution of that ruling.269 199. The relevant part of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of May 24, 2011, indicated that: […] the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has emphasized that Articles 4 and 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights recognize the international obligation of the States Parties “not to subject a person to the risk of the application of the death penalty via extradition” […]. Evidently, the Peruvian State has two obligations that, supposedly, it must meet. On the one hand, it has the obligation to extradite Wong Ho Wing based on the Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Peru and the People’s Republic of China. On the other hand, it also has the obligation not to subject Wong Ho Wing to the risk of the application of the death penalty via extradition, and to try him for the offenses for which his extradition is sought. Apparently, the obligations described above are incompatible, because if Wong Ho Wing is extradited, the Peruvian State would be unable to try him. Conversely, if the Peruvian State decides to try Wong Ho Wing, it would be unable to extradite him, because it would prefer to safeguard the right to life. This apparent conflict between obligations must be decided bearing in mind the protection of the right to life of Wong Ho Wing, which is also an obligation imposed on the Peruvian State under Articles 4 and 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, should the death penalty be imposed on Wong Ho Wing, following his trial in the People’s Republic of China, his right to life would be evidently and truly harmed, and this could be attributed to the Peruvian State, because it had not assessed sufficiently and reasonably the sufficient and real assurances provided by the requesting State that it would not impose the death penalty on him. In such cases, the European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not guarantee the right not to be 265 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 167, and Case of the Afrodescendant Communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, supra, para. 405. 266 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 54, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Series C No. 265, para. 193. 267 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction, supra, para. 79, and Case of the Afrodescendant Communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, supra, para. 405. 268 269 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 220. Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction, supra, para. 73, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 33.