30 B. The Chinese courts will enforce the penalties that apply in the case of extraditurus Wong Ho Wing, following the letter of the law and fully observing the Extradition Treaty between the governments of 32 China and Peru. 84. On February 10, 2009, the Official Commission on Extraditions and Convict Transfers issued its Report on the Request for Passive Extradition of Chinese citizen Wong Ho Wing. It wrote the following: (…) we believe that a translation of Article 151 of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China is necessary. Article 153, paragraph one, makes reference to Article 151, as shown in the translation at page 90 of the CJ. It is true that under the extradition treaties that Peru has signed, extradition can be granted even in a case where the person being extradited may face the death penalty; however, in such cases, extradition is only permitted when assurances are given that the death penalty will not be applied or that the death penalty will not be enforced even if that is the sentence delivered by the courts of the requesting State. Although the Treaty with the People’s Republic of China does not contain an express clause concerning capital punishment, Article 5 of that Treaty provides that one of the conditions for extradition shall be as follows: “Extradition shall only be granted if it is not contrary to the requested State’s laws.” (…) The communication from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, received through a note from its Executive Secretary dated January 27, 2009, states that the crime would carry the death penalty. Inasmuch as the case file does not contain the requesting State’s guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied, the Judicial Branch must first be asked to provide a copy of that guarantee if it was given; if no such guarantee was given, the Judicial Branch must be asked to render its opinion on the information reported by the Inter-American Commission on Human 33 Rights (…). 85. On February 12, 2009, Lima’s 56th Special Criminal Court issued an order for a temporary stay in processing the request seeking passive extradition of Mr. Wong Ho Wing, to allow the constitutional habeas corpus proceeding to run its course, since: According to the record verifying the status of the extradition process (…) the extradition case is already with the Ministry of Justice’s Commission on Extraditions and Convict Transfers and will soon be referred to the Council of Ministers, whereupon the extraditurus will be surrendered to the requesting country (…). This would all be carried out without having confirmed whether or 34 not due process has been violated in processing this extradition request (…). 86. On April 2, 2009, Lima’s 56th Special Criminal Court issued its decision on the petition of habeas corpus filed by Mr. Wong Ho Wing. The court did not uphold the due process arguments. 35 As 32 Annex 17. Brief from Office No. 24 of the Ministry of Public Security, dated February 2, 2009. Attachment to the State’s communication of July 16, 2010. 33 Annex 18. Report No. 19-2009/COE-TC, dated February 10, 2009. Attachment to the brief received from the State on October 25, 2010. 34 35 Annex 19. Brief dated February 12, 2009. Attachment to the brief received from the State on May 15, 2009. Annex 20. Decision of April 2, 2009, delivered on the constitutional habeas corpus petition, 2940-2009 (003-09-HC). Attachment to the brief received from the State on May 15, 2009.