84 enforcement of the sentence. These two considerations have thus been absent from the analysis done by the authorities who, under the Constitution and the laws, are charged with issuing an opinion on and deciding extradition requests, namely the Judicial Branch in its advisory role, and the Executive Branch. 273. As described in the section on established facts, the context of the human rights situation in the People’s Republic of China is a matter of public knowledge and mainly concerns the following: (i) the widespread use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in that country, a problem that time and time again has been a matter of the utmost concern to the United Nations monitoring bodies and to civil society; and (ii) the high incidence of the application of the death penalty in China and the lack of access to official information on the use of the death penalty because it is regarded as a State secret. 274. This contextual information required that the State be especially diligent about obtaining assurances and determining what weight to attach to them, both because of its obligation to guarantee the right to life of persons within its jurisdiction and because of the absolute ban prohibiting torture and the corollary obligation of non-refoulement if the person being returned would face such a risk. 275. As for the possibility that the death penalty might be enforced and at the insistence of the Inter-American Commission through its requests for information and the precautionary measures it granted, the State took precautionary measures that were insufficient. The assurances that the People’s Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China gave are narrow and individualized assurances that are inadequate given the risk that application of the death penalty would pose; they offer no prospects for monitoring in the future and do not put to rest the questions raised by the fact that in China the death penalty is regarded as a State secret. Moreover, and taking account of another factor that the European Court weighs in such cases, the assurance does not come with any information concerning the jurisdiction that the People’s Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China would actually have in the specific criminal case prosecuted against Mr. Wong Ho Wing, or how much control the People’s Supreme Court might exercise over proceedings in other courts in the country. 276. Even though the assurance given by the People’s Republic of China was insufficient by the applicable international standards and there was no discussion whatever of the issue of “context”, the Peruvian Supreme Court proceeded to describe the assurance as an “ineluctable commitment” and to assert that there was “no danger whatever” that the death penalty would be applied. 277. As for the possibility that Mr. Wong Ho Wing might become the victim of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, no such assurance was requested or given. The discussions focused around the death penalty and altogether ignored context-related considerations that were public knowledge and had to do with the use of torture. As a result, the necessary assurances that torture would not be used were not procured, nor were effective prospects for monitoring. 278. Based on its information and observations, the Commission concludes that between the time the first petition of habeas corpus was filed and a new advisory resolution was issued on December 27, 2010, the Peruvian State continued to fail its duty to guarantee Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s right to life and right to humane treatment.