72 reasonably anticipated that they will be sentenced to death, without ensuring that the death 199 sentence would not be carried out. (…) For these reasons, the Committee considers that Canada, as a State party which has abolished the death penalty, irrespective of whether it has not yet ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty, violated the author’s right to life under article 6, paragraph 1, by deporting him to the United States, where he is under sentence of death, without ensuring that the death penalty would not be carried out. The Committee recognizes that Canada did not itself impose the death penalty on the author. But by deporting him to a country where he was under sentence of death, Canada established the crucial link in 200 the causal chain that would make possible the execution of the author. 224. Taking account of the underlying principles supporting this decision, the Commission finds that under Article 4 of the American Convention, States parties that have permanently abolished the death penalty can be held responsible for a violation of the right to life if they extradite a person to a country where he or she may face the death penalty, without first getting the necessary assurances that the death penalty will be neither imposed nor applied. The corollary here is that under Article 4 of the American Convention, States that have not permanently abolished the death penalty are obliged to ensure that the crimes for which the death penalty is applied are the most serious of crimes and that under no circumstance will the death penalty be applied in respect of crimes for which it has already been abolished. In any case, the death penalty may only be applied if all the procedural guarantees have been strictly observed. 225. In the case of Peru, the Commission notes that at the time Peruvian State ratified the American Convention in 1978, the 1933 Constitution was in force, Article 54 of which read as follows: “The death penalty shall be applied for the crime of treason and homicide, and for all those crimes for which the law prescribes capital punishment.” Article 235 of the 1979 Constitution provided that: “Capital punishment does not exist except in the case of treason in the context of foreign war.” The Constitution in force at the present time is the 1993 Constitution, Article 140 of which provides that: “The death penalty can only be applied for the crimes of treason in time of war and terrorism, under the laws and treaties binding upon Peru as a State Party.” This clause of the Constitution notwithstanding, the Commission notes that under the legal provisions criminalizing treason and terrorism, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment and not the death penalty. The Commission notes, therefore, that it is not altogether clear whether the death penalty can be applied to anyone in the Peruvian State. 226. Nevertheless, the fact is that the crimes for which capital punishment is possible in Peru are not at issue in this case; more specifically, in the case of the crimes mentioned in the extradition request presented by the People’s Republic of China, it is abundantly clear that the death penalty is not allowed for such crimes in Peru. 227. Hence, in the context of an extradition request, the Peruvian State has an obligation to refrain from taking measures incompatible with the obligations that the right to life imposes upon it, 199 Human Rights Committee, Case of Roger Judge v. Canada. Communication 829/1998. CCPR/C/78/D/829/1998 (2003). October 20, 2003, paragraph 10.4. 200 Human Rights Committee. Case of Judge v. Canada. Communication 829/1998. CCPR/C/78/D/829/1998 (2003). October 20, 2003. Paragraph 10.6.