46 of Ministers can still evaluate whether extradition can be granted with respect to the crime that does not pose this risk; obviously, if that is the case, then the Peruvian State would be in 83 compliance with the Constitutional Court’s ruling. 133. On November 28, 2011, the Ministry of Justice’s Office of the Public Prosecutor sent a communication to Lima’s Thirtieth Criminal Court. On instructions from the Minister of Justice, the communication contained information pertaining to Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition. It stated the following in that regard: 1.- The provisional arrest that triggered the present habeas corpus was filed in connection with an extradition process, which has not culminated. It will only close with the Peruvian State’s sovereign decision, expressed through the Supreme Resolution that decides whether or not the request for extradition will be granted. 2.- Because, as explained above, the extradition process is not yet finished, no one can claim to know, or claim to foresee or suggest what decision the Peruvian State will take on the extradition request. (…) A.- Even that ruling is powerless to prevent the Executive Power’s sovereign decision, precisely because of the principle of separation of powers; although the Council of Ministers is required to take the Court’s decision into account, that decision is not determinative and does not end the extradition process or dictate the content of the final decision. B.- Compliance with the Constitutional Court’s ruling is not incompatible with the possibility that the Executive Branch might evaluate the extradition request and eventually decide to grant it, 84 provided there is no risk that the death penalty will be enforced. 134. On December 1, 2011, the representative of the Ministry of Justice, Pablo Martín Morán Mejía, filed a brief with the Ombudsman’s Office in which he recounted the objective reasons why officials in the Ministry of Justice had not yet reached a decision on the request received from the Seventh Criminal Court of the Callao Superior Court and had not yet provided the case file on Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s provisional arrest. The brief also stated that any evaluation of the reasonableness of the length of the extradition process would have to take into account the procedural activity that Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s defense necessitated, and any “case lodged with institutions having supranational jurisdiction.” The following was stated in connection with the request to provide the case file: 4.1. Just as the Ministry of Justice was finalizing the necessary details to accommodate the request to provide the case file on the provisional arrest (the first communiqué) by sending the requested case file, it received the second communiqué, in which the court sent us the proceedings on the request seeking release (which was the reason for the request made in the first communiqué). 4.2. Noting that a new and peculiar situation had presented itself, since extradition case No. 032009 had not yet been decided by the Executive Branch, and the Provisional Arrest Warrant of October 28, 2008 is part of the 229-page court record, which in turn is part of the administrative proceedings, and considering that the Callao court had sent us the court records on the request for the extraditurus’ release, the view was that the court communications had to be referred to the General Office of Legal Advisory Services for it to consider and give its opinion on the proper 83 Annex 61. November 25, 2011 brief in Case File 05748-2010-0-1801-JR-PE-42. Attachment to the brief received from the petitioner on February 1, 2012. 84 Annex 62. Communiqué No. 2381-2011/JUS-PPMJ, dated November 28, 2011. Attachment to the brief received from the petitioner on February 1, 2012.