- 28 - Regarding the retroactive effects of the Criminal Code, according to paragraph [1] of article [12] of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China, the principle of sentencing in accordance with the law at the time of the act is followed, and also the principle of applying the lesser punishment; in other words, for offenses that have not been sentenced prior to the entry into force of the Criminal Code, if there has been no change in the status of the punishment between the law at the time of the act and the law in force, the law at the time of the act is applied. If the law in force imposes a lesser punishment, the law in force is applied. Under the eighth amendment, which came into force on May 1, 2011, the first paragraph of article 153 of the Criminal Code was amended. The presumed offenses committed by [Wong Ho Wing] occurred before this amendment came into force and, at the same time, pursuant to the provisions of the amended article, the maximum punishment is less than the maximum punishment before the amendment. Based on the above-mentioned principles, the eighth amendment will be applied in the case of [Wong Ho Wing]. The undertaking made by the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China not to impose the death penalty on [Wong Ho Wing] remains in effect.108 88. On February 9, 2012, the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights asked the President of the Supreme Court of Justice to issue a “complementary advisory decision,” taking into account “the entry into force of the eighth amendment of the Criminal Code of [the People’s Republic of China, which annuls] the death penalty for the offense of smuggling ordinary merchandise.”109 Accordingly, on February 15, 2012, the Permanent Criminal Chamber ordered that a passive extradition hearing be held on February 21, 2012110 (infra para. 89). On March 13, 2012, the representative filed a fifth application for habeas corpus against the convening of this hearing.111 According to information provided by the State on December 1, 2014, this procedure is still pending.112 89. However, the February 21 hearing was annulled due to lack of information on the applicable Chinese legislation.113 After this information had been obtained, on March 6, the Permanent Criminal Chamber again convened the hearing for March 14, 2012.114 That day, the Criminal Chamber indicated that it was unnecessary to hold the hearing and “pointless, as the matter had been dealt with owing to the issue of a new advisory decision.” In this regard, it emphasized that, “in sum, there are two final rulings, one of an advisory nature (by the Judiciary), and the other of a binding nature (by the Constitutional Court) that the Executive Branch must comply with, taking into account the provisions of article [113] of the Code of Constitutional Procedure.”115 90. Meanwhile, on March 12, 2013, the Constitutional Court decided that the request for interpretation of its mandate with regard to Wong Ho Wing was inadmissible (supra para. 86).116 It stressed that, regarding this appeal for interpretation: February 24, 2012. Cf. Official translation of article 12 (evidence file, folios 7504 and 7505). 108 Clarification of the case to which the eighth amendment is applicable (evidence file, folio 7512). 109 Brief of February 9, 2012, before the President of the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file, folio 352). 110 Cf. Decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of February 15, 2012 (evidence file, folio 2595). 111 Cf. Application for habeas corpus of March 13, 2012 (evidence file, folio 361). 112 Cf. The State’s brief of December 1, 2014 (merits file, folio 1159). The application for habeas corpus was admitted on April 29, 2013. Cf. Admissibility decision of April 29, 2013 (evidence file, folios 8517 to 8520). 113 Cf. Decision of February 21, 2012 (evidence file, folios 7456 to 7460). 114 Cf. Note of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China of February 27, 2012 (evidence file, folio 7471), and decision of March 6, 2012, of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file, folio 359). 115 Decision of March 14, 2012 of the Permanent Criminal Chamber (evidence file, folio 373). 116 Cf. Decision of March 12, 2013, of the Constitutional Court (evidence file, folio 377).