3 granting the extradition. Also, on February 6, 2010, Mr. Wong Ho Wing informed the Commission that he had submitted a writ of habeas corpus against the Supreme Court’s January 20, 2009, ruling. That same date, Peru filed additional information consisting of a letter dated February 2, 2009, sent by a consular official in China, indicating that there was no possibility that Mr. Wong Ho Wing would be punished with the death penalty or life in prison. At the same time, the State requested that the Commission reject the precautionary measure due to the filing of the aforementioned writ of habeas corpus and its effect of suspending the legal proceeding granted with it. On February 10, 2009, Mr. Wong Ho Wing said that with regard to the communication from Peru, the guarantee given by China is not very reliable given that a note from a consular authority is not binding for the State and that, considering the seriousness of the accusations made against him, the crime could indeed be punished with the death penalty; d) On March 31, 2009, the Commission granted precautionary measures for the benefit of Mr. Wong Ho Wing based on information indicating that, under certain circumstances, the crime of smuggling or customs fraud - that is, the crime for which the extradition was requested - may lead to the death penalty. On that same date, the Commission accepted application number P-366-09 for processing. The application was presented by Mr. Wong Ho Wing on March 27, 2010. The complaint was related to the State’s supposed failure to comply with its international obligations due to alleged irregularities in the extradition proceeding in Peru. The complaint alleged failure to meet due process standards and failure to provide guarantees that the death penalty would not be applied in the case of extradition, as required by domestic law; e) On May 1, 2009, the State communicated to the Commission that the judicial authority had partially granted the writ of habeas corpus and nullified the January 20, 2009, Supreme Court ruling, meaning that court would have to issue a new ruling; f) On January 27, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled inter alia to grant the request for extradition on charges of customs fee fraud and bribery, given that the formal and substantive requirements have been met. The Peruvian State said it would turn over the Chinese citizen on the condition that the competent Chinese authorities commit to not imposing the death penalty. The Supreme Court found the September 8, 2009, ruling by the Chinese People’s Supreme Court relevant. That ruling stated that in the case of Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition, the death penalty would not be imposed. The Peruvian Supreme Court therefore concluded that there was no risk that the death penalty would be applied. Separately, the Court indicated that although the Inter-American Commission had made a request for precautionary measures, the Inter-American Court had not ordered provisional measures. The Supreme Court therefore found that “no order from a competent authority has been issued binding the State [...] to refrain from complying with the terms of the Extradition Treaty signed with the People’s Republic of China,” and g) Mr. Wong Ho Wing provided information on a request for a preventative writ of habeas corpus against Executive Branch authorities who make the decision in the final instance of an extradition proceeding. The writ would order them to refrain from making a decision that would violate the rights of the potential beneficiary. The writ was not granted and the potential beneficiary was notified on March 2, 2010.