III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES Position of the petitioner 13. The petitioner stated that on October 27, 2008 Mr. Wong Ho Wing was arrested at the Jorge Chávez International Airport in the Constitutional Province of Callao based on an arrest warrant forwarded by INTERPOL. He indicated that the order came from court officials in the People’s Republic of China, where the alleged victim is subject to prosecution for the crimes of money laundering, bribery, smuggling, and customs fraud. The petitioner alleged that on November 3, 2008 Office No. 24 of the Chinese Ministry of Security sent an official communiqué to the Peruvian State seeking extradition of the alleged victim. He affirmed that since October 27, 2008 Wong Ho Wing has been held under provisional arrest in the Sarita Colonia prison, far from his wife and two children, who reside in the United States. The petitioner asserted that the provisional arrest was ordered on October 28, 2008 by the First Specialized Court of Callao, and was upheld on December 11, 2008 by the First Temporary Combined Superior Chamber of Callao. 14. The petitioner indicated that the extradition request issued on November 3, 2008 by Office No. 24 of the Chinese Ministry of Security contains only a translation of Article 153 of the Chinese Penal Code, which defines the crimes of smuggling and customs fraud. He stated that the request omitted the translation of Article 151 of the same code, which considers the possibility of imposing life in prison or the death penalty for the aggravated form of the referenced crimes. He indicated that the Chinese Penal Code stipulates that evasion amounting to more than five hundred thousand yuan constitutes the aggravated form of smuggling and customs fraud, whereas Mr. Wong Ho Wing is accused before the Chinese Judicial Branch of evading more than one million yuan. 15. The petitioner emphasized that various organizations that monitor the human rights situation in China have expressed concern over reports of thousands of people sentenced to death every year in that country. Such organizations have indicated that various convictions were issued through summary judgments without due process guarantees, in many cases using evidence and confessions obtained through torture. According to some reports from nongovernmental organizations attached by the petitioner, the statistics on death sentences and executions are classified as State secrets in China. On this basis, he maintained that the Peruvian State has no ability to exercise any type of control to prevent the imposition of the death penalty on Mr. Wong Ho Wing, nor does it have any ability to guarantee that he will not be tortured or subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment once he is under the jurisdiction of his country of origin. 16. According to the allegations, on January 20, 2009 the Second Temporary Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued an advisory ruling concluding that the request to extradite Mr. Wong Ho Wing satisfied the requirements provided under Peruvian law regarding the crimes of evasion of customs duties and smuggling. This decision is indicated as having been adopted despite the submission of incomplete translations by the Chinese government of the criminal provisions that provide the basis for the extradition request, specifically Article 151 of the Chinese Penal Code. It is asserted that the defense attorney for the alleged victim was not notified on a timely basis so that he could support his defense in the extradition hearing before the Supreme Court of Justice, which occurred on January 19, 2009. It is alleged that the ruling of January 20, 2009 ignores the provisions of Article 517(3)(d) of the Peruvian Criminal Procedure Code. 3 It is also alleged that the Criminal Procedure Code and the Organic Law of the Office of the Attorney General establish that the Chief Prosecutor must be present at the extradition hearing before the Supreme Court of Justice, which did not happen in the hearing conducted on January 19, 2009. 17. The petitioner attached a press clipping on a donation of fifteen vehicles to the Peruvian State by the government of the People’s Republic of China on January 9, 2009. According to 3 That provision establishes that “neither shall extradition be ordered when (…) the crime for which extradition is sought is subject to the death penalty in the requesting State and that State does not provide assurances that it will not be applicable.” 3