8 34. The petitioner alleged that the behavior of the Chinese authorities in the request seeking Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition revealed that any commitment made at the diplomatic or jurisdictional level could not be trusted. He also pointed out that the Peruvian State never bothered to inquire about how reliable any commitments made regarding the application of the death penalty were. He added that even assuming that the assurances that the death penalty would not be applied were honored, “the context of persistent and manifest human rights violations in China and the behavior of the Chinese authorities in the extradition process allow one to reasonably conclude that Mr. Wing would be tortured or subjected to other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” 35. For all the foregoing reasons, the petitioner argued that the advisory decision of the Supreme Court favorable to Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition implies a failure to comply with the duty to prevent violation of the rights to life and to humane treatment, protected under articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. The petitioner contends that by agreeing to Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition the State “is indirectly applying the death penalty; although the State cannot apply the death penalty within its own jurisdiction, through extradition it is allowing a requesting State to apply the death penalty at its own discretion, in exercise of its sovereignty.” 36. As for the right to personal liberty, the petitioner asserted that since October 27, 2008, Mr. Wong Ho Wing has been in custody in the Sarito Colonia Prison in Callao, under the “provisional arrest” provided for in Article 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He pointed out that the alleged victim was held in custody solely for the purpose of an eventual extradition proceeding. In the petitioner’s view, Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s detention is “arbitrary, because it is excessive in terms of time and disproportionate.” He observed that since the close of the advisory phase of the extradition process, the Executive Branch has not adopted a final decision pursuant to Article 514.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has arbitrarily deprived the alleged victim of his liberty, in violation of all the maximum time periods that an unconvicted person can be held under Peruvian domestic law. The petitioner underscored the fact that “the violations of due process attributable exclusively to the State in processing an extradition must not compromise the right to personal liberty.” He also wrote that the “provisional arrest” measure was neither necessary nor proportional since at the time of his arrest, Mr. Wong Ho Wing was not a “fugitive”; instead, he was simply engaged in his entrepreneurial activities. The petitioner also pointed out that the alleged victim’s deprivation of liberty was ordered under Article 521(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which makes it the rule and not the exception. 37. The petitioner also indicated that despite the Constitutional Court’s May 24, 2011 decision, Mr. Wong Ho Wing remained behind bars, without any legal justification, and despite repeated requests for his release filed with all the courts. Here, the petitioner observed that the Ministry of Justice and Peru’s Judicial Branch were coordinating closely to prevent Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s release by whatever means. 38. As for the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, the petitioner asserted that the conduct of the Peruvian judicial authorities in the advisory extradition process is allegedly riddled with irregularities intended to be helpful to the People’s Republic of China. Among these, the petitioner highlighted the following: 39. The petitioner reiterated that the original extradition request omitted provisions of China’s Criminal Code that allow the death penalty to be used for crimes of fraud when the money involved is in excess of a specified amount. He underscored the fact that the Chinese government offered no evidence or reasonable indicia that Mr. Wong Ho Wing bore criminal responsibility for the