- 60 place of detention of Wong Ho Wing, to give Peruvian diplomats access to and different means of
contacting Wong Ho Wing during his detention; offered guarantees as regards his right of defense
and the possibility of professional assistance and medical care, as well as granting the Peruvian
diplomatic authorities authorization to monitor the proceedings eventually instituted against Wong
Ho Wing (supra para. 93.h).
184. In addition to taking into account the standards of the European Court and other
international bodies when assessing these assurances, the Court underlines that the terms of this
last diplomatic note accord with what both of the Commission’s expert witnesses considered a
sufficient guarantee in the context of an extradition. Expert witness Ben Saul emphasized as
adequate characteristics of the diplomatic assurances that they were “solid, significant and
verifiable”; that they “included an effective monitoring system that was prompt, regular and
included private interviews,” and also “prompt access to a lawyer, (video) recording of all
interrogations sessions with a record of the identity of all those present, a prompt and independent
medical examination, and the prohibition of solitary confinement or detention in clandestine
places.”257 Meanwhile, expert witness Geoff Gilbert indicated that “[f]or the assurances to be
sufficient to allow the return, they should refer specifically to the person whose extradition is
requested; they must depend on the circumstances (including the source and content of the
assurances […]), and they must be independently verifiable after the extradition.”258 The last
guarantee provided by the People’s Republic of China to Peru complies with these characteristics.
Consequently, this Court finds that, in the circumstances of this case, the assurances provided may
be considered sufficient to satisfy the concerns that remained about the alleged risk to Wong Ho
Wing were he to be extradited.
185. The representative and the Commission contested assessment of this latest assurance,
considering it time-barred. However, the Court notes that, under international law, there is no limit
to the number of assurances that may be provided by the requesting State or required by the
requested State. Moreover, there is no impediment to sufficient assurances being provided
progressively and increasingly. As mentioned throughout this Judgment, in order to determine
whether Wong Ho Wing would face a risk that would harm his right if he were extradited, this
Court must examine and assess all the information currently available, because the extradition has
not taken place yet. The possibility of obtaining the necessary and sufficient assurances
progressively could be restricted by the guarantees of due process that protects every person
under the jurisdiction of a State, if there was a limit in this sense in the domestic law of the State
in question or, in any case, owing to the obligation to hold the trial within a reasonable time, but
this does not mean that the Court cannot take these last assurances into account in order to
determine Wong Ho Wing’s presumed situation of risk in the requesting State if he were to be
extradited. The possible consequences of the State’s delay in obtaining appropriate assurances
must be examined when analyzing the alleged violation of reasonable time made in another
section of this Judgment (infra paras. 207 to 223)
186. The representative also argued that the assurances provided by China were not reliable,
because in three other cases where, presumably, the Chinese Government had provided
assurances, these had not been fulfilled.259 In this regard, the Court notes that the representative
257
Affidavit made by Ben Saul on August 18, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6980).
258
Affidavit made by Geoff Gilbert on August 16, 2014 (evidence file, folio 7024).
259
The representative referred to three cases mentioned in an Urgent Action of Amnesty International concerning the case of
Wong Ho Wing. This organization indicated that: “China executed the Tibetan, Lobsang Dhondup, in January 2003, one month
after it had assured the United States that his case would be subject to extensive review by the People’s Supreme Court.
Extraditions and expulsions implemented previously suggest that the Chinese assurances should not be relied on. In 1995,
Wang Jianye was executed after he had been extradited from Thailand, despite the assurances given to the Thai authorities
that he would not be sentenced to death. In June 2000, Fang Yong was sentenced to death after being returned from Canada.
Unconfirmed reports suggest that China had provided assurances that he would not be sentenced to death. His sentence was