45 ordered to provide the case file on the provisional arrest, advising him that should he fail to hand over said case file, he would be denounced for the crime of contempt of authority and abuse of power.80 130. On November 16, 2011, Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s representative filed a petition of habeas corpus against the Minister of Justice and the Seventh Criminal Court for Jailed Prisoners of the Callao Superior Court, in order to request the “immediate release” of Mr. Wong Ho Ling and the return of his passport, and to ask that any order restricting his freedom of movement be lifted.81 131. On November 21, 2011, Mr. Lamas Puccio asked the Ombudsman’s Office to intervene to protect his client’s right to freedom, as his continued incarceration was a violation of human rights and because the Minister of Justice and the Seventh Criminal Court for Jailed Prisoners of the Callao Superior Court had withheld the case file on his provisional arrest.82 132. On November 25, 2011, the Public Prosecutor in Charge of Judicial Affairs, which is under the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Ministry of Justice, filed a brief with the 42nd Special Criminal Court of the Lima Superior Court in which she requested clarifications regarding enforcement of the May 24, 2011 decision. The relevant parts of her request are as follows: (…) if it is to be in compliance with the ruling handed down, the Peruvian State cannot settle the matter of extradition either way, the implication being that the person whose extradition is being sought is at risk of facing the death penalty. It is abundantly clear that the Court has determined that in the case of the crime of fraud or smuggling, that risk is real, which means that the Peruvian State cannot extradite the person sought for that crime. 9. The foregoing notwithstanding, having looked at the alternatives for how to proceed with the extradition process, the Ministry of Justice realizes that the reasoning set out in the preceding paragraph applies only with respect to the possibility of extradition for the crime of fraud or smuggling, and not with respect to the crime of bribery, where there is no possibility that the death penalty will be applied. 10. While it is true that the ruling does make draw distinctions between the crimes whose penalties necessitated the ruling in order protect the extraditurus, it is also true that it does not explicitly state that the crime that does not pose a real risk of capital punishment deserves the same treatment as the other crime. It would be unreasonable to assume that was the case, since the reasoning that applies to one case does not apply to the other. This situation has to be addressed and must not be taken lightly. On the contrary, this issue requires very deliberate examination because, inter alia, the Peruvian State has concluded an Extradition Treaty with the People’s Republic of China that it has an obligation to honor. The Peruvian State cannot possibly maintain that the death penalty is a real risk in any extradition to the Chinese State, since to do so would obviously devoid an existing bilateral treaty of any and all content. 11. Given this state of affairs, the Ministry of Justice is of the view that while the ruling that we are enforcing requires that extradition be denied for a crime that is a capital offense, the Council 80 Annex 58. Brief of November 8, 2011. Attachment to the communication received from the petitioner on December 1, 2011. 81 Annex 59. Habeas Corpus petition dated November 16, 2011. Attachment to the communication received from the petitioner on December 1, 2011. 82 Annex 60. Brief of November 17, 2011. Attachment to the communication received from the petitioner on December 1, 2011.