- 70 presumed victim being removed from the State’s jurisdiction. To the contrary, on repeated occasions, the Court called attention to the delay in the adoption of a final decision in the extradition proceedings by the Executive Branch.297 Consequently, the Court does not find admissible the State’s argument that the processing of this case before the inter-American system and, particularly, the fact that the provisional measures were in force, justify the delay in deciding the request for the extradition of Wong Ho Wing. B.2.c) Conduct of the State authorities 214. In this case, the Court must analyze the actions of the judicial authorities responsible for the proceedings up until the issue of the second advisory decision, the authorities of the Executive Branch responsible for taking the final decision on the extradition request, as well as the other authorities who have intervened in the process. To facilitate the analysis, the process will be divided into two stages: (i) the first stage (from the arrest of Wong Ho Wing until the issue of the second advisory decision on January 27, 2010), and (ii) the second stage (from the issue of the second advisory decision on January 27, 2010, to date). 215. The first stage of the proceedings do not reveal periods of inactivity that can be attributed to the State and that could be considered the causes of the delay in obtaining a final decision. However, it does reveal negligent conduct by the State authorities who headed the proceedings, which resulted in their prolongation. Thus, on November 14, 2008, the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao received the request to extradite Wong Ho Wing made by the People’s Republic of China.298 However, the extradition request did not include article 151 of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China, which was applicable to the case and established the possibility of the death penalty for the smuggling offenses (supra para. 62). In this regard, both the Extradition Treaty and the laws of Peru require the extradition request to be accompanied by the “texts of the pertinent legal provisions of the criminal jurisdiction, with the offense and the punished imposed on it.”299 The Extradition Treaty also establishes that: If the Requested Party considers that the information provided to support the extradition request is insufficient, this Party may require that additional information be provided within thirty days. When the Requesting Party provides justified reasons, the time frame may be extended by fifteen days. If the Requesting Party does not present the additional information within this period, it will be considered that it has voluntarily waived the extradition request. However, the Requesting Party shall not be prevented from making a new extradition request for the same offense.300 297 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, considerandum 19; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013, consideranda 5; Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, considerandum 10, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of March 31, 2014, considerandum 17. 298 Cf. Extradition request from General Directorate No. 24 of the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China of November 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 28), and Decision of the Second Criminal Court of El Callao of November 14, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1737 and 1738). The request was sent under a note of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China dated November 13, 2008 (evidence file, folio 35). 299 Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Peru and the People’s Republic of China, Article 7.1.d (evidence file, folio 8299), and Code of Criminal Procedure, promulgated by Legislative Decree No. 957 of July 29, 2004, article 518.1.d. Available at: http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Decretoslegislativos/00957.pdf, cited in the Commission’s Merits Report, folio 24. 300 Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Peru and the People’s Republic of China, article 8 (evidence file, folio 8299). See also, Supreme Decree No. 016-2006-JUS. Norms on judicial and government conduct in matters relating to extraditions and prisoner transfers. Published on July 26, 2006, article 2 (evidence file, folio 8548), and Code of Criminal Procedure, promulgated by Legislative Decree No. 957 of July 29, 2004, article 518. Available at: http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/ Documentos/Decretoslegislativos/00957.pdf, cited in the Commission’s Merits Report, folio 24.