34 as soon as possible concerning the extradition of the smuggling suspect Huang Haiyong or Wong Ho Wing from Peru to China.”48 100. The December 8, 2009 “Decision Pledging Not to Sentence Huan Haiyong or Wong Ho Wing to the death penalty” delivered by the People’s Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China, addressed to the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China, states the following: If 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 49 Haiyong or Wong Ho Wing, even if by law his crime carries the death penalty. 101. On January 5, 2010, Lima’s 53rd Criminal Court delivered its ruling in the constitutional habeas corpus petition filed by Luis Lamas Puccio on behalf of Wong Ho Wing, for the alleged violation of the right to life and the right to personal integrity, and against the justices on the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber. In that ruling, Lima’s 53rd Criminal Court wrote that: (…) an important factor to consider is that the petitioner-plaintiff’s habeas corpus petition was filed to have the extradition request for Mr. Wong Ho Wing declared unfounded and out of order; that extradition request is now being heard by the Supreme Court’s Second Criminal Chamber (…) Lima’s 56th Criminal Court has provided certified copies concerning the habeas corpus petition (…) which reveal that the habeas corpus petition now before this court has already been examined and reviewed by another court, which issued a ruling (…) Furthermore, this constitutional petition of habeas corpus, which is arguing violation of constitutionally protected rights, cannot be used to limit the functions and/or authorities that the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch has conferred upon the judges; the violations it is claiming have not materialized since a competent authority, in exercise of his functions, has issued a duly substantiated decision (…) to accept the plaintiff’s argument would be to render meaningless, irrelevant, without force, power or effect the authority that judges have to exercise criminal action, thereby violating the rights and authorities of judges (…) the court concludes that the petitioner’s intent is to get an outside court to disrupt the normal development of the regular proceedings conducted (…) this petition must be declared out of order under article five of the 50 Code of Constitutional Procedure. 102. On January 27, 2010, the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber issued a new advisory decision declaring the request to extradite Chinese citizen Wong Ho Wing to be in order. In that advisory decision, and after receiving the technical opinion regarding the legality or illegality of the request, the Chamber stated that the delays that occurred in processing the extradition request were due to the fact that the requesting State did not act promptly to provide “the documents necessary to be able to reach a decision on the request”, documents that were essential to prevent violation “of the supranational system pertaining to international agreements that govern observance and enforcement 48 Annex 29. Communication N.O. No. 204/2009. Attachment to the State’s July 16, 2010 communication. 49 Annex 30. Translation of the decision pledging not to sentence Mr. Huang Haiyong or Wong Ho Wing to the death penalty, dated December 8, 2009. Attachment to the brief received from the State on July 16, 2010. 50 Annex 31. Ruling delivered on the petition of habeas corpus H.C. Case No 44215-09 (53rd J.P. Lima). Attachment to the communication received from the State on March 27, 2010.