28 79. On December 11, 2008, Callao’s First Transitory Mixed Superior Court Chamber issued a decision on the appeal that Mr. Wong Ho Wing filed to challenge the warrant for his provisional arrest. In its decision, the court upheld the warrant for Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s provisional arrest. Summarizing, the court ruled as follows That in the instant case, the Criminal Judge has ordered the provisional arrest of Mr. Wong Ho Wing for purposes of extradition, based on the premise set forth in subparagraph c) of paragraph one of Article 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that a condition precedent to order provisional arrest is that the person to be extradited must be within the national territory and that the International Criminal Police Organization -INTERPOL- must have issued an urgent request for his provisional arrest. These requirements have been satisfied, as attested to by the 14-page memorandum from INTERPOL and the 15-page request filed by the People’s Republic of China seeking his arrest (…) Another requirement that must be met in order to issue a provisional arrest warrant is set forth in paragraph four of the aforementioned article five hundred twentythree, which is that the reputedly criminal act must also be a crime in Peru, a requirement that has been satisfied in the instant case since the smuggling for which appellant Wong Ho Wing is being sought is criminalized in our criminal laws as well. (…) the appellant’s arguments, contained in his 38-page appeal, offer no basis in fact or in law by which to settle the matter, since this Collegiate Body is not deciding whether passive extradition is or is not in order. That decision is the function of the corresponding Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court. As for any procedural risk, this body is not called upon to examine a provisional arrest made for purposes of extradition; instead, its function is a criminal case instituted in our 27 country for a given crime, which is not the appellant’s case. 80. On January 20, 2009, the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court issued an advisory decision in which it concluded that the request seeking Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition met the requirements stipulated in Peru’s laws with respect to the crimes of customs fraud and smuggling; it therefore held that the request was proper. In that decision, the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court wrote the following: (…) That the judicial authorities of the People’s Republic of China are accusing Chinese citizen Wong Ho Wing or Huang He Yong and his co-defendants Pan Zi Niu and Sha Hi (fugitives) of having committed customs fraud (…), having corrupted customs officials to pull off the customs fraud, and of having sent outside the country (China), the sum of 4.048 million United States dollars, in three separate transfers, on August 20, 1998 (…), (…) That judging from the attached documents, it appears that in the present passive extradition request seeking Chinese citizen Wong Ho Wing or Huan Hoy Yong or Huang He Yong, the Government of the People’s Republic of China has complied with the formal requirements of that Treaty (…) (…) thereby complying with the extradition principle of dual criminality. It should be noted that the crimes in question have no political connotations and are not political in nature. FOUR: Therefore, inasmuch as the provisions of the aforementioned extradition treaty have been observed, the present request, as set forth in the preceding consideranda (…). Is deemed to be in order (…). 27 Annex 13. Decision dated December 11, 2008, delivered by Callao’s First Transitory Mixed Superior Court Chamber on the appeal filed in Case No 1870-2008-25, consideranda three and four. Attachment to the State’s communication of November 10, 2011, received at the Commission that same day.