- 18 - 55. This case relates to the request for the extradition of Wong Ho Wing, a Chinese citizen, and the ensuing extradition proceegings in Peru. In this regard, the relevant facts will be described as regards: (A) the extradition treaty between China and Peru; (B) the extradition proceedings in Peru; (C) the extradition process in the case of Wong Ho Wing, and (D) the detention of Wong Ho Wing and the remedies filed in this regard. A. Extradition Treaty between China and Peru 56. An extradition treaty exists between the People’s Republic of China and Peru that was signed on November 5, 2001, and entered into force on April 5, 2003. It establishes the obligation to extradite “anyone who is in their territory and is required by the other party in order to institute criminal proceedings or execute a judgment against them.” In addition, the treaty indicates the offenses that are subject to extradition; the obligatory and discretionary grounds for rejecting an extradition request; the conditions and requirements that an extradition request should meet, as well as the procedure, and communication and information channels in the case of an extradition request from either of the contracting parties. This treaty does not include an express clause on the way to proceed in the case of offenses for which the death penalty is established; however, it does establish as a condition for the extradition that “it [shall] not be contrary to the legal system of the Requested Party.”39 The specific provisions of the Extradition Treaty that are relevant for this case are described in greater detail in the corresponding chapters (infra paras. 138 and 239). B. The extradition process in Peru 57. In Peru, extradition is carried out by means of “a joint procedure consisting of a jurisdictional stage and a political stage.”40 According to the Constitution, extradition must be granted by the Executive Branch.41 To implement this constitutional provision, the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that the Government will decide on extradition by means of a “supreme decision issued with the agreement of the Council of Ministers, following a report by an official commission presided by the Ministry of Justice and incorporating the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” However, before the Government decision, “the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court is required to intervene to issue an advisory decision.” This advisory decision is binding “[w]hen the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court issues an advisory decision contrary to extradition,” but only advisory when it is “favorable to the return or considers it in order to request a foreign country to grant an extradition,” so that “the Government may take the appropriate decision.”42 58. However, domestic law conditions the granting of extradition “to the existence of assurances that justice will be imparted correctly in the Requesting State” and that it does not have “political implications” for a third State. In addition, among the reasons for rejecting a request for extradition, the procedural norm establishes that extradition shall not be granted when “the act on 39 Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Peru and the People’s Republic of China (evidence file, folios 1633 to 1636), and decision of October 5, 2009, of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, (evidence file, folio 101). 40 Statement made by Víctor García Toma during the public hearing held in this case. 41 Article 37 of the Peruvian Constitution establishes that: “Extradition shall only be granted by the Executive Branch following a report by the Supreme Court, in compliance with the law and the treaties, and based on the principle of reciprocity. Extradition shall not be granted if it is considered that it has been requested in order to persecute or punish for reasons of religion, nationality, opinion or race. The extradition of those pursued for political offenses or for acts related to such offenses is precluded; this does not include genocide, magnicide and terrorism.” 1993 Constitution of Peru. Available at: www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/ConstitucionP.htm, cited in the Commission’s Merits Report, folio 19. 42 Code of Criminal Procedure, promulgated by Legislative Decree No. 957 of July 29, 2004, articles 513 to 515. Available at: http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Decretoslegislativos/00957.pdf, cited in the Commission’s Merits Report, folio 24. Similarly, see Statement made by Víctor García Toma during the public hearing held in this case.