the attached note, the vehicles were intended for the Peruvian Judicial Branch and delivered personally by China’s Ambassador to Peru, in a ceremony that included the participation of the General Secretary of the Office of the President of the Republic, seven members and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice. The petitioner maintained that this donation would indicate presumed partiality in the advisory proceeding on the extradition of Wong Ho Wing. 18. According to the information submitted, on January 26, 2009 the alleged victim’s representative filed a habeas corpus action arguing irregularities in the advisory ruling of January 20, 2009 and risk to the life and integrity of Mr. Wong Ho Wing. That action was declared partially substantiated on April 2, 2009 by the 56th Criminal Court of Lima, which ordered the temporary suspension of the extradition process and called upon the Second Temporary Criminal Chamber to issue a new advisory ruling. That decision was upheld in the final instance on June 15, 2009 by the Second Criminal Chamber for Jailed Accused of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima. 19. The petitioner indicated that a new hearing was conducted on October 5, 2009 before the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “the Permanent Criminal Chamber”). He stated that on the same date the extradition request proceedings were returned to the Seventh Criminal Court of Callao to address the observation that the People’s Republic of China had not attached the guarantee that the death penalty would not be imposed on the extraditurus. The petitioner asserted that on October 12, 2009 Mr. Wong Ho Wing submitted a second habeas corpus petition to the 53rd Criminal Court for Summary Proceedings with Jailed Accused, challenging the members of the Permanent Criminal Chamber, alleging that they limited themselves to ruling on the alleged procedural irregularities without deciding on the merits of the extradition request. The information submitted indicates that that action was declared inadmissible on January 5, 2010. The petitioner indicated that in response to that decision Mr. Wong Ho Wing submitted an appeal to the Third Criminal Chamber for Jailed Accused of Lima, without indicating the result obtained. 20. According to the petitioner, on December 11, 2009 the Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China in Peru sent an official communiqué to the President of the Permanent Criminal Chamber, reporting that the Supreme People’s Court of China had issued a ruling stating that the Chinese Judicial Branch would not impose the death penalty on the alleged victim, even if he is found guilty of offenses sanctioned with such punishment. The petitioner stated that after new oral hearings were conducted before the Permanent Criminal Chamber, that Chamber adopted a second advisory ruling on January 27, 2010, declaring that the documents sent by China met the requirements provided in Peruvian law. According to the information provided, the Permanent Criminal Chamber declared the extradition request admissible only for the crimes of evading customs duties and bribery to the detriment of the People’s Republic of China. 21. The petitioner asserted that on February 9, 2010 the legal representative of Mr. Wong Ho Wing filed a third habeas corpus action against the President of the Republic, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Foreign Relations, who are responsible under domestic law for adopting a final decision on the extradition of the alleged victim. According to the information submitted, that habeas corpus action was rejected on February 25, 2010 by the 42th Criminal Court of Lima, and this decision was upheld on April 14, 2010 by the Third Criminal Chamber for Jailed Accused of Lima. The information indicates that the case is pending a ruling from the Constitutional Court on an appeal claiming constitutional injury (recurso de agravio constitutional) filed by the alleged victim. 22. Finally, the petitioner alleged that the Peruvian State is responsible for violating the rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 24, 8 and 25 of the American Convention and that it has the obligation to compensate Mr. Wong Ho Wing for the material and moral damages he has suffered due to his imprisonment since October 27, 2008. 4