extraditable individual should he be found criminally responsible” (bold face and upper case correspond to the original version). The Peruvian State makes the requested handover of the Chinese citizen contingent upon the commitment made by the competent authorities of the People’s Republic of China not to impose the death penalty on him, should he be convicted; in addition, the Peruvian State must be informed of the verdict in the decision in respect of the extraditurus when it is handed down […]. 28. The State submitted a list of 40 Supreme Court rulings adopted in Peru over the last five years regarding extradition requests from various countries. It indicated that in all these cases the norms of the Convention, Constitution and the law established for the purpose or extradition were respected. 29. With respect to the alleged violations of judicial guarantees and protection, the State asserted that Mr. Wong Ho Wing was freely able to invoke all the remedies provided by domestic law, which were decided by competent judges within the context of due process. It indicated that before adopting the advisory ruling on January 27, 2010, the Supreme Court of Justice held three extradition hearings in the presence of translators and the attorney appointed by the alleged victim. It stated that the events related in the petition do not tend to establish a violation of the Convention and asked the IACHR to declare the petition inadmissible pursuant to Article 47(b) of the Convention. 30. The State emphasized that the habeas corpus action filed on February 9, 2010 against the President of the Republic and the Council of Ministers has not yet been finally decided by the Constitutional Court, which heard the case on July 14, 2010. It also indicated that the extradition process has not concluded, in that the Council of Ministers has not ruled in accordance with Article 514(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6 In this sense, the State maintained that the petition does not satisfy the requirement indicated in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. 31. Finally, the State asserted that the passive extradition process with respect to the alleged victim is suspended “because on May 28, 2010 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights decided to grant provisional measures in favor of the Chinese citizen Wong Ho Wing, pursuant to which the Peruvian State must refrain from extraditing him to the People’s Republic of China until December 17, 2010.” IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission temporis and ratione materiae ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione 32. The petitioner is authorized by Article 44 of the Convention to submit complaints. The alleged victim is a natural person under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State as of the date of the events reported. For its part, Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978. As a result, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 33. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition in that it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention occurring within the territory of a State Party to that convention. 34. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention was already in effect for the State on the date when the events alleged in the petition occurred. 35. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges the violation of rights protected by the American Convention. 6 Article 514(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Peru establishes as follows: The government is responsible for deciding on passive or active extradition through a Supreme Ruling issued with the agreement of the Council of Ministers, with a prior report from an Official Commission presided over by the Ministry of Justice and including the Ministry of Foreign Relations. 6