REPORT No. 151/10 PETITION 366-09 ADMISSIBILITY WONG HO WING PERU November 1, 2010 I. SUMMARY 1. On March 27, 2009 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition submitted by Luis Lamas Puccio (hereinafter “the petitioner”) on behalf of Wong Ho Wing 1 (hereinafter also “the alleged victim”) alleging violation by the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “Peru,” “the State,” or “the Peruvian State”) of rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”). The petitioner indicated that the alleged victim was arrested in Peru based on an arrest warrant for purposes of extradition issued by the People’s Republic of China. He indicated that on January 27, 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice issued an opinion favorable to extradition, referring to the Executive Branch the final decision on handing over Mr. Wong Ho Wing. The petitioner asserted that the advisory process before the Peruvian Judicial Branch ignored domestic provisions on obtaining guarantees that the death penalty would not be imposed by the country requesting extradition. Finally, the petitioner argued that the courts that heard the advisory procedure on extradition and the habeas corpus actions filed by Mr. Wong Ho Wing failed to comply with the obligations assumed by the Peruvian State by virtue of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 24 and 25 of the American Convention. 2. The State asserted that a habeas corpus action filed by Wong Ho Wing on February 9, 2010 is pending a final decision and that the Executive Branch has not yet issued a decision on the extradition requested by the People’s Republic of China. It indicated that the alleged victim freely exercised the remedies provided in domestic law for the purpose of challenging the advisory issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on January 27, 2010. It indicated that the legal representative of Mr. Wong Ho Wing filed three habeas corpus actions to prevent his extradition, which were ruled by competent courts and with due process guarantees. Finally, the Court asked the IACHR to declare the petition inadmissible based on a failure to comply with requirements established in Articles 46(1)(a) and 47(b) of the Convention. 3. Without prejudging the merits of the complaint and after analyzing the positions of the parties and the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decided to declare it admissible for purposes of examining the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the Convention as they relate to Article 1.1 of that treaty. In addition, the IACHR decided that the alleged violation of the right protected under Article 24 of the Convention is inadmissible based on the requirement established in Article 47(b) thereof. The Commission also decided to inform the parties of this decision, to publish it, and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION A. Processing of the petition 4. The initial petition was received on March 27, 2009 and recorded under No. P 366-09. On March 31, 2009 the IACHR forwarded the petition to the Peruvian State and, in accordance with Article 30.4 of its Rules of Procedure, 2 granted the State a period of one month to submit 1 In briefs from the parties and abstracts from the court files received by the IACHR, the alleged victim is referred to with the names Wong Ho Wing, “Huang Hai Yong,” “Huang Haiyong,” “Huang He Yong,” “Wong He Yong,” and “Wuang He Yong.” 2 Article 30.4 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure establishes as follows: In serious and urgent cases, or when it is believed that the life or personal integrity of a person is in real and imminent danger, the Commission shall request the promptest reply from the State, using for this purpose the means it considers most expeditious. 1