29 (…) However, in the case of the crime of money laundering, it is important to note that at the time the acts were committed in the requested country (…) money laundering was not a criminal offense under our substantive criminal law system. Therefore, the dual criminality requirement for extradition was not satisfied with respect to the crime of money laundering. Thus, the extradition request filed by the judicial authorities of the People’s Republic of China must be 28 declared out of order with respect to that crime. 81. On January 26, 2009, Mr. Wong Ho Wing filed a petition of habeas corpus alleging the “certain and imminent threat of violation of his rights to life and to personal integrity.” In this petition, he made reference to a number of irregularities in the extradition process, among them “the fact that the Supreme Prosecutor was not present for the extradition hearing and his opinion regarding the legality or illegality of Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition was not produced.” Also mentioned was the failure to promptly notify his attorney of the scheduled date of the extradition hearing. He also argued that Peru’s extradition laws “will be irrelevant … if the process to which the extradited person is subjected does not meet the international requirements of due process.” He argued further that extradition should not be ordered when “the crime for which extradition is sought is a capital offense in the requesting State, and the latter does not offer assurances that the death penalty will not be applied.” This petition of habeas corpus emphasized that under Article 152 of China’s Criminal Code, the death penalty could be ordered for the crime at issue in this case; therefore, the “extradition request should be denied and not be given the hearing that it has received.” He also stated that the extradition request failed to include the translation of Article 151 of China’s Criminal Code, which states that the crime of which Mr. Wong Ho Wing is accused, is a capital offense.29 82. On January 26, 2009, Lima’s 56th Criminal Court decided to grant cert to the petition of habeas corpus for “an alleged violation of the fundamental guarantee of due process.”30 83. On February 2, 2009, the consul from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, Cai Liquan, sent the Chair of the Commission on Extraditions and Convict Transfers a communication enclosing an “explanation of the penalty that extraditurus Wong Ho Wing would face.”31 This “explanation” of how Mr. Wong Ho Wing would be sentenced states the following: A. Given the nature of the crimes for which extraditurus Wong Ho Wing is sought and the provisions of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China, there is no possibility that he will face either life imprisonment or capital punishment. 28 Annex 14. January 20, 2009 decision declaring the request for Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition in order. Attachment to the State’s brief received at the IACHR on July 16, 2010. 29 Annex 15. Petition of habeas corpus filed by Wong Ho Wing on January 26, 2009. Attachment to the State’s brief received on May 15, 2009. 30 Annex 16. Decision No. 01 (Ing. 003-2009 - HC), dated January 26, 2009. Attachment to the brief received from the State on May 15, 2009. 31 Annex 17. Brief from Office No. 24 of the Ministry of Public Security, dated February 2, 2009. Attachment to the State’s communication of July 16, 2010.