- 22 Thus, according to the communication of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, […] the offense would merit the death penalty and, since the case file does not include the requesting State’s guarantee not to apply the death penalty, the Judiciary should first be requested to forward this guarantee if this has been presented or, if not, requested to rule on the alert raised by the Inter-American Commission […]; that is, on the possible application of the death penalty.60 68. On February 12, 2009, the 56th Criminal Court of Lima ordered the “temporary suspension of the processing of the passive extradition process […] until the constitutional habeas corpus proceeding has concluded,” taking into account that “the continuation of [the] process before the Council of Ministers and the implementation of the return of the individual whose extradition has been requested to the requesting country was imminent.”61 The Public Attorney of the Judiciary appealed this decision.62 On April 24, 2009, the Second Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima annulled the decision of February 12, 2009, because the precautionary measures and the suspension were not established by law in habeas corpus proceedings.63 69. On February 24, 2009, the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Peru sent the translation of articles 151, 153, 154, 191, 389 and 390 of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China to the 56th Criminal Court of Lima.64 70. On April 24, 2009, the 56th Criminal Court of Lima considered well-founded the application for habeas corpus, and declared “invalid the advisory decision [of] January 20, [2009,]” because it “was insufficiently substantiated.”65 The decision was based on the fact that the advisory decision “does not state clearly and categorically that the accused cannot be extradited to be prosecuted for the supposed perpetration of offenses that require the death penalty.”66 It also declared inadmissible the request to release Wong Ho Wing, indicating that this request was not affected by the annulment of the advisory decision.67 Following an appeal, the decision was confirmed on June 15, 2009.68 71. On August 25, 2009, the Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China sent the Supreme Court of Justice a note in which he indicated that case law existed of similar cases where the 60 Report of the Official Commission for Extraditions and Prisoner Transfers dated February 10, 2009 (evidence file, folios 73 and 74). 61 Decision of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 77). 62 This appeal was granted on March 9, 2009, and “the respective file” was prepared. Cf. Appeal by the Public Attorney of the Judiciary of March 3, 2009 (evidence file, folios 4415 to 4420), and decision of March 9, 2009 (evidence file, folio 2043). 63 Cf. Decision of the Second Special Criminal Chamber (evidence file, folio 8481). 64 Cf. Note of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China of February 24, 2009 (evidence file, folios 1627 to 1630). 65 Decision of April 24, 2009 (evidence file, folios 89 and 90). 66 Decision of April 24, 2009 (evidence file, folio 89). Following this decision, on October 14, 2009, the members of the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice were accused before the National Council of the Judicature “for presumed functional misconduct in the issue of the decision of January 20, 2009.” Following the respective investigation, on September 19, 2012, the National Council of the Judicature decided “[t]o conclude the disciplinary procedure […], filing the proceedings and to acquit them of the accusations; ordering that the disciplinary proceedings be filed and the corresponding record annulled,” considering that the judges had not failed to analyze the case and motivate their findings appropriately. On November 14, 2012, the National Council of the Judicature declared that an appeal for review that had been filed was unsubstantiated, “and considered that the administrative jurisdiction had been exhausted.” Decisions of the National Council of the Judicature of December 11, 2009, August 12, 2010, February 14, 2011, September 19, 2012, and November 14, 2012 (evidence file, folios 7343, 7345, 7348, 7355, 7356, 7364, 7365 and 7373). 67 68 Cf. Decision of April 24, 2009 (evidence file, folio 90). Cf. Appeal of April 8, 2009 (evidence file, folios 92 and 93), and decision of the Second Special Criminal Chamber of Lima for proceedings where the accused is in prison of June 15, 2009 (evidence file, folio 6231).