80 250. Comparative law offers important precedents regarding the assessment of diplomatic assurances. Thus, for example in the case of Manickavasagam Suresh v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Attorney General of Canada, previously cited, the Canadian Supreme Court wrote the following: In evaluating assurances by a foreign government, the Minister may also wish to take into account the human rights record of the government giving the assurances, the government’s record in complying with its assurances, and the capacity of the government to fulfill the assurances, particularly where there is doubt about the government’s ability to control its 233 security forces. (…) The Minister must provide written reasons for her decision. These reasons must articulate and rationally sustain a finding that there are no substantial grounds to believe that the individual (…) will be subjected to torture, execution or other cruel or unusual treatment, so long as the person under consideration has raised those arguments. (…) In addition, the reasons must also emanate from the person making the decision, in this case the Minister, rather than take the 234 form of advice or suggestion… 251. These standards regarding the characteristics, scope and content of the diplomatic or other assurances to ensure that the death penalty or torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment will be neither imposed nor applied are the framework that must be used to determine whether a State complied with its obligation to request assurances and then properly assess those assurances for their sufficiency, clarity and reliability. In that analysis, it will have to examine, in addition to the State’s assurances, the conduct of the State under whose jurisdiction the person sought in the request is found and then assess those assurances. This analysis will be done in the following chapter, based on the facts that the Commission has deemed established in this case. 2.3 Analysis of the facts of the case 252. Under articles 514 and 515 of Peru’s Code of Criminal Procedure, which build upon Article 37 of the Constitution, the final decision on extradition is taken by the government in a supreme resolution issued with the agreement of the Council of Ministers following a report by an official commission chaired by the Ministry of Justice and composed of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Government’s decision will require the involvement of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which will issue an advisory resolution. When the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court issues an advisory resolution counseling against extradition, the Government must comply. If, however, the advisory resolution is favorable to extradition, the Government is free to decide whether or not to grant extradition. 253. The Commission notes first that irrespective of how a State chooses to regulate extradition –whether it be by a court decision and left to the discretion of the Executive Branch, with or without the involvement of the Judicial Branch- the relevant factor for purposes of international responsibility is that extradition is an action taken by a State that can affect rights established in the 233 Supreme Court of Canada. Manickavasagam Suresh v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Attorney General of Canada (Suresh v. Canada), 2002, SCC 1. File No. 27790, January 11, 2002. Para. 125. 234 Supreme Court of Canada. Manickavasagam Suresh v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Attorney General of Canada (Suresh v. Canada), 2002, SCC 1. File No. 27790, January 11, 2002. Para. 126.