48 RESOVE TO CONFIRM: the decision of November 30, 2011, an authenticated copy of which appears in the record at pages 297 to 298; it resolves to dismiss the petition that the Ministry of Justice’s Office of the Public Prosecutor for Judicial Affairs submitted concerning the possibility of an extradition outside the framework that the Constitutional Court has established in its 87 judgment, which has already become final.” 137. On March 6, 2012, the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber issued an order on extradition case No. 03-2009, in which it set the date for the passive extradition hearing concerning Chinese citizen Wong Ho Wing, “it order to issue its decision on the Ministry of Justice’s request that a complementary advisory decision be issued.”88 138. On March 13, 2012, Mr. Luis Lamas Puccio filed a petition of habeas corpus to challenge the decisions delivered by the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber in extradition case No. 032009, which ordered that a new, complementary advisory decision be issued and that a new extradition hearing be held. He also requested that the nullity of the aforementioned decisions be ordered.89 139. On March 14, 2012, the Lima Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber issued a decision on the request from the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights concerning the issuance of a complementary advisory decision, based on a new fact related to the proceedings being conducted in connection with the passive extradition of Mr. Wong Ho Wing. The members of that Chamber deemed that “an additional public hearing on the passive extradition would serve no purpose” and that “issuance of the new advisory decision or complementary advisory decision” that the Ministry of Justice was seeking, “was unfounded and would therefore serve no purpose” since it is the Executive Branch that makes the decision that the law requires.” That March 14, 2012 decision reads, in part, as follows: (…) In this set of legal circumstances there are a total of two final pronouncements, one that is advisory in nature (and comes from the Judicial Branch) and another that is binding in nature (and comes from the Constitutional Court) and with which the Executive Branch must comply, as 90 the law prescribes (article 113 of the Code of Constitutional Procedure). 140. On March 12, 2013 the Constitutional Court issued a resolution that declared inadmissible the constitutional remedy requested by the Public Prosecutor so that this body "could define the scope" of its judgment issued on May 24, 2011. The Constitutional Court ruled as follows: The intended purpose is that (...) with the pretext of "specify" one end of its judgment, "modify" the ruling. (...) In this sense, according to the contents of both the judgment and the resolution of clarification issued by the Constitutional Court, it should be noted that in those decisions was not made an individual or separate analysis of the crimes imputed to the accused, not only because it did not correspond to be elucidated (...) but also because the relevant issue was to determine 87 Annex 65. Decision of February 20, 2010. Attachment to the communication received from the petitioner on March 8, 2012. 88 Annex 66. March 6, 2012 order. Attachment to the communication received from the petitioner on March 13, 2012. 89 Annex 67. Habeas Corpus petition dated March 13, 2012. Attachment to the communication received from the petitioner on March 19, 2012. 90 Annex 68. March 14, 2012 decision, received at the IACHR on April 13, 2012.