6 III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioner 24. The petitioner indicated that on October 27, 2008, Mr. Wong Ho Wing was arrested in Peru based on an arrest warrant issued by INTERPOL at the request of the court authorities of the People’s Republic of China in a criminal case being prosecuted in that country for the crimes of money laundering, bribery, smuggling and customs fraud. The petitioner observed that the extradition request issued by the People’s Republic of China contained a translation of Article 153 of the Chinese Penal Code, which defines the crimes of smuggling and customs fraud; however, it omitted the translation of Article 151 of that Code, which allows for the possibility of imposing a sentence of life in prison or the death penalty for the aggravated form of the crimes of smuggling and customs fraud. 25. According to the allegations, on January 20, 2009 the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued a finding to the effect that the request to extradite Mr. Wong Ho Wing met the requirements provided under Peruvian law regarding the crimes of customs tax evasion and smuggling. The petitioner stated that on January 26, 2009, the alleged victim’s attorney filed a petition of habeas corpus, asserting that Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s life and personal integrity were in jeopardy. The petitioner stated that as a result of this petition of habeas corpus, the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court was called upon to issue a new advisory decision. 26. The petitioner stated that on October 5, 2009, a new hearing was conducted before the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. He asserted that on October 12, 2009 Mr. Wong Ho Wing filed a second petition of habeas corpus challenging the members of the Permanent Criminal Chamber. The information submitted indicates that this second petition was declared inadmissible on January 5, 2010, a decision that Mr. Wong Ho Wing had allegedly appealed. 27. According to the petitioner, on December 11, 2009, the Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China in Peru sent an official communiqué to the President of the Permanent Criminal Chamber, reporting that the Supreme People’s Court of China had issued a ruling stating that the Chinese Judicial Branch would not give the alleged victim the death penalty. He also stated that after new oral hearings were conducted before the Permanent Criminal Chamber, the latter adopted a second advisory decision on January 27, 2010, declaring that the extradition request was admissible in the case of the crimes of customs tax evasion and bribery to the detriment of the People’s Republic of China. 28. The petitioner asserted that on February 9, 2010, Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s attorney filed a third petition of habeas corpus against the President of the Republic, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, whose job it was to make the final decision regarding the alleged victim’s extradition. According to the information submitted, that petition of habeas corpus was denied on February 25, 2010 by the 42nd Criminal Court of Lima; that decision was upheld on April 14, 2010 by the Third Criminal Chamber for Jailed Accused of Lima. During the merits phase of this case with the IACHR, the parties reported on the Constitutional Court’s May 24, 2011 decision in which it granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the Executive Branch to refrain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing. 29. The petitioner pointed out that the Peruvian Government has refused to abide by the Constitutional Court’s decision. He asserted that the refusal to comply with the decisions was the product of ”close and well-orchestrated coordination between the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights