71 account. 195 220. In addition to these limitations, Article 4 of the American Convention provides for the gradual restriction of the death penalty where it states that in countries that have not abolished the death penalty, it shall not be extended to crimes to which it does not presently apply. In countries that have abolished it, the death penalty cannot be reinstated. 221. As for the international responsibility that might be engaged by subjecting a person to the risk of the death penalty through deportation or extradition, the Commission would point to the current thinking of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its interpretation of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The language of the part of that article that is relevant to the case at hand is similar to the language of the American Convention.196 222. In 2003, in the case of Roger Judge v. Canada, the Human Rights Committee modified its previous case law on the subject,197 indicating that a review of its previous case law was warranted as the case involved the question of whether one of the most fundamental rights-the right to life- was violated. The Committee noted that there had been notable factual and legal developments and changes in international opinion in respect of the issue. In discussing the ten years that had passed since its previous jurisprudence on the subject, the Human Rights Committee wrote that since that time there has been a broadening international consensus in favour of abolition of the death penalty, and in states which have retained the death penalty, a broadening consensus not to carry it out […] The Committee considers that the Covenant should be interpreted as a living instrument and the rights protected under it should be applied in context and in the light of 198 present–day conditions. 223. In that same case, the Committee wrote the following concerning Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: States parties that have abolished the death penalty have an obligation under this paragraph to so protect in all circumstances.[…] For countries that have abolished the death penalty, there is an obligation not to expose a person to the real risk of its application. Thus, they may not remove, either by deportation or extradition, individuals from their jurisdiction if it may be 195 I/A Court H.R., Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, paragraph 55. e 196 See analysis of the text of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in: 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. 197 See, for example, Human Rights Committee. Case of Kindler v. Canada. Here, the Human Rights Committee wrote that Article 6(2) of the Covenant did not prohibit the death penalty for the most serious crimes. The Committee’s interpretation in that case was that “Canada itself did not impose the death penalty on Mr. Kindler, but extradited him to the United States, where he faced capital punishment. If Mr. Kindler had been exposed, through extradition from Canada, to a real risk of a violation of article 6, paragraph 2, in the United States, that would have entailed a violation by Canada of its obligations under article 6, paragraph 1.” As for the guarantees, the Committee wrote that “the obligations arising under article 6, paragraph 1, did not require Canada to refuse the author's extradition” or to seek assurances, but rather that the requested State at least would consider seeking assurances. 198 Human Rights Committee, Case of Roger Judge v. Canada. Communication 829/1998. CCPR/C/78/D/829/1998 (2003). October 20, 2003. Para. 10.3.