7 and the Judicial Branch to give the prosecutor’s office in that ministry time to negotiate a new and unlawful revised version of the Constitutional Court’s decision.” 30. The petitioner asserted that in January 2011, five officials from the People’s Republic of China visited Mr. Wong Ho Wing in the Sarita Colonia Prison. They allegedly asked him to “drop his legal actions and agree to extradition, and promised him that once back in China he would not face the death penalty and possibly might not face criminal prosecution; they stressed, however, that his extradition had to materialize.” 31. Concerning the legal arguments, and specifically those regarding the rights to life and to humane treatment, the petitioner pointed out that under Article 4(2) of the Convention and Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, capital punishment may only be imposed in truly exceptional circumstances and only for the most serious crimes affecting the most cherished possession. He added that the case law of the Inter-American Court, like that of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (hereinafter, “the Human Rights Committee”), has, for purposes of application of the death penalty, defined “the most serious crimes” as those in which a human life has been arbitrarily taken. The petitioner underscored the fact that the alleged crimes of which Mr. Wong Ho Wing is accused in China cannot be regarded as so serious in nature that a human life is at stake. Therefore, the possibility of the death penalty is contrary to the standards of International human rights law. 32. The petitioner argued that the opinion issued by the Supreme Court favorable to Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition disregards the provisions of Article 517, paragraph 3, subparagraph (d) of the Peruvian Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits a grant of extradition when the extraditurus may face the death penalty or when the requesting State does not offer adequate guarantees that the death penalty will not be applied. The petitioner argued that it was the Supreme Court’s responsibility to take proper stock of the fact that China is the country “with the highest number of convictions followed by execution in the world, and that these sentences are imposed without the guarantees of due process, and even in cases in which torture is used to exact self-incriminating confessions which the courts then accept as evidence.” He added that statistics on death sentences are classified information in China, so that the Peruvian State would have no way to exercise any oversight to ensure that Mr. Wong Ho Wing was not executed once he was under the jurisdiction of his country of origin. 33. The petitioner mentioned urgent actions from Amnesty International which denounced the fact that the Chinese court authorities allegedly applied the death penalty after having requested extradition and after giving assurances that the persons whose extradition was being requested would not be executed. He argued that “the competent court authority did not file any request with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs […] showing that it had made inquiries concerning the use of the death penalty in that country (…).” He maintained that given the reports of various nongovernmental organizations and United Nations committees denouncing the use of torture in criminal cases in China, the Peruvian State “should have also required a guarantee from the Chinese government that torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would not be used against him [the alleged victim].” The petitioner observed that to determine whether there is well-founded cause to believe that a person subject to extradition might be subjected to torture in the requesting state, the authorities must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a persistent pattern of manifest, blatant or massive human rights violations.