10 B. The State 46. Throughout the processing of this case with the Inter-American Commission, the State has asserted a variety of positions. The State’s position in its earliest communications during the admissibility phase 47. The State asserted that on October 27, 2008 INTERPOL agents arrested Mr. Wong Ho Wing, who was being sought internationally due to an arrest warrant issued by court authorities in China, in a criminal proceeding for the crimes of smuggling and customs fraud allegedly committed between August 1996 and May 1998 in the city of Hong Kong. It alleged that on the same date the Criminal Court of Callao ordered the provisional arrest of Mr. Wong Ho Wing, so that the People’s Republic of China could submit an extradition request. The State indicated that on October 28, 2008 Mr. Wong Ho Wing made his preliminary statement to the Criminal Court of Callao in the presence of a defense attorney, a Chinese interpreter, and a representative from the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 48. The State’s narration of the facts was similar to that of the petitioner with respect to the judicial decisions that established the provisional arrest of Mr. Wong Ho Wing, the decisions adopted in the advisory proceeding on extradition, and the petitions of habeas corpus filed. The State indicated that before issuing the second advisory decision on January 27, 2010, the Permanent Criminal Chamber held extradition hearings on October 5 and December 9 and 21, 2009, in which the attorney for the alleged victim was allowed to speak and a translator was ordered appointed. 49. The State asserted that in the light of Article 515 of the Peruvian Code of Criminal Procedure, the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice on January 27, 2010 is merely advisory in nature and initiated a political procedure in which the final decision must be taken by the Constitutional President of the Republic, with the vote of the Council of Ministers and a prior report from an Official Commission on Extradition and Convict Transfers. 50. With respect to guarantees not to impose the death penalty, the State indicated that Article 5 of the Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Peru and the People’s Republic of China, signed on November 5, 2001, establishes that extradition will only be carried out if it is not contrary to the legal system of the party to which the request is made. The State indicated that Article 140 of the Political Constitution of Peru limits capital punishment to the crime of treason in cases of war and terrorism. It argued that “it is legally impossible to order the extradition of Mr. Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China if that country does not grant sufficient guarantees that it will not impose the death penalty on the citizen in question.” In addition, it attached a copy of the ruling of December 8, 2009 issued by the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China, along with an official translation, in which that country’s highest court establishes the following: If extradition from Peru to China is applied, if Huang Haiyong or Wong Ho Wing is found guilty through prosecution in the Court, the Court will not order the Death Penalty (including the immediate execution of the Death Penalty and a temporary two-year stay thereof) for Huang Haiyong or Wong Ho Wing, even though by law his crime carries the death penalty.9 9 Annex 18. Communication from the State received on July 16, 2010, Resolution dated December 8, 2009 issued by the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China.