9 crimes attributed to him. He also pointed out that Article 518 of the Peruvian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “the request for extradition must contain the evidence necessary to establish sufficient indicia of the commission of the criminal act.” He added that in an opinion of October 1, 2009, the Office of the First Supreme Court Prosecutor recommended to the Second Permanent Criminal Chamber that the advisory decision it issued should not favor extradition. Among the reasons cited was the fact that the extradition request did not include any evidence suggesting that the extraditurus was guilty of the criminal acts attributed to himself. 40. The petitioner maintained that during the extradition process, the documents that the Chinese government presented as a guarantee that the death penalty would not be applied were not forwarded to Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s defense counsel, in violation of the adversarial principle. The petitioner also observed that those guarantees came to light only as a result of the documentation that the Peruvian State’s representation presented to the organs of the inter-American system during the processing of this case and the related precautionary and provisional measures. 41. The petitioner argued that the Second Permanent Criminal Chamber held extradition hearings on October 5 and December 9 and 21, 2009, despite the fact that Article 521 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that only one hearing shall be held, at the end of which an advisory decision is to be issued within five days. He added that under Supreme Decree No. 016-2006-JUS, which regulates “judicial and governmental conduct in the area of extradition and convict transfers,” it is up to the central authority, at the request of the jurisdictional body, to ask the requesting State to correct, clarify or complete the extradition request and documentation within a maximum of thirty days. 42. The petitioner argued that the State has an obligation to give adequate reasons for its decision, since the only factor considered in the process was the guarantee given by the People’s Republic of China that it would not apply the death penalty; other circumstances, such as the context in the requesting country, were not considered. In connection with the failure to state adequate reasons for the decision, the petitioner cited the January 27, 2010 decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that in a case in which a decision is made to extradite a person to a state in which he might eventually face the death penalty, adequate reasons related to the additional circumstances that must be considered are essential. The petitioner asserted that the “State has an ineluctable duty” to take the malicious conduct of the “Chinese officials” into consideration. 43. The petitioner also mentioned the delays in the process, especially the delay in deciding the petitions of habeas corpus filed. Here, the petitioner argued that the State violated the rights protected under articles 7(6) and 25 of the American Convention. 44. The petitioner pointed out that, considering how the judicial proceedings have been conducted thus far, even if Mr. Wong Ho Wing had been tried in Peru he would not have had the necessary judicial guarantees of “an impartial and independent judge presiding over a proper trial.” The petitioner mentioned that the Chinese authorities had donated vehicles to the Peruvian judicial branch. He also noted that all the judges who have presided over the proceedings in this case thus far have been provisional judges. 45. As for the State’s request that the record on the petition be closed on the grounds that the matter no longer had a purpose and was therefore not properly before the Commission, the petitioner objected by recounting the violations being alleged.