35 of human rights and that are binding upon our country’s domestic legal order.” The Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber held that: (…) in the present extradition request, the following formal requirements were satisfied: a) the requesting authority is identified, as indicated at page 77 of the extradition file; b) the person whose extradition was sought was identified as Chinese citizen Wong Ho Wing or Huang He Young, (…); c) the crimes of which he stands accused are summarized (…) The crimes of which he is accused are also crimes under Peruvian law, such as customs fraud (…), and generic active bribery (…). Therefore, the dual criminality rule has thus been observed; in other words, the crimes of which Mr. Wong Ho Wing is accused are crimes under the laws of both States. In the People’s Republic of China, these offenses carry penalties of imprisonment for more than one year, as shown by the translated articles of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China (…). While the laws of the requesting country consider alternative penalties, (…) the death penalty could be applied (…). The possibility that capital punishment would be applied is contrary to Peru’s extradition law, since our domestic laws expressly prohibit the death penalty. (…) However, another important factor to consider is the duly translated decision (…) issued by the People’s Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China, (…) which formally declares that “[i]f extradition from Peru to China is granted, should Huang Haiyong or Wong Ho Wing be found guilty through prosecution in the Court, the Court will not order the Death Penalty (including immediate execution of the Death Penalty and a temporary two-year stay thereof) for Huang Haiyong or Wong Ho Wing, even if by law his crime carries the death penalty.” That pledge bespeaks the steadfast commitment of the judicial authorities in the People’s Republic of China NOT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY on the person whose extradition is sought should he be found guilty of the crimes charged. Therefore, there is no real risk that the person whose extradition is sought will face the death penalty or similar punishment in the requesting State. Furthermore, with that guarantee, should the Peruvian authorities consider extradition to be in order, they would not be violating their commitments under the American Convention on Human Rights, the Protocol for the Abolition of the Death Penalty, the InterAmerican Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (…) Furthermore, although a request seeking precautionary measures for the extraditurus has been filed with the Inter-Commission on Human Rights, according to what Special Supranational Public Prosecutor Delia Muñoz Muñoz reported, (…) that request is under analysis at the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights and its admissibility has not yet been decided; similarly, the provisional measures requested from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to order the Peruvian State to refrain from surrendering the extraditurus to the Chinese State, is still being processed – in other words, no order has as yet been issued by a competent authority instructing the Peruvian State to refrain from complying with the terms of the Extradition Treaty it signed with the People’s Republic of China. (…) As for the issue of money laundering, from August 1996 to May 1998, the period during which the illicit acts were alleged to have been committed in the requesting State, money laundering was only a crime in the requested State with respect to the proceeds from illegal drug trafficking. Therefore, the rule of dual criminality is not satisfied in the case of money