- 23 sentence had been 15 years’ imprisonment, “so that there was no possibility that the death penalty would be imposed on the applicant” (infra para. 92.b).69 72. On October 2, 2009, the Supreme Prosecutor advised the Permanent Criminal Chamber of his opinion that the advisory decision on extradition should be unfavorable.70 73. On October 5, 2009, the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice held a public hearing during which it ordered the return of the case file to the judge of the Seventh Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of El Callao, to rectify the failure to comply with the requirement “to attach the certification that the guarantee that the death penalty will not be imposed if he is convicted has been presented or, if not, that it has been requested,” and to reschedule the hearing.71 74. On October 12, 2009, the representative of Wong Ho Wing filed a second application for habeas corpus against the judges of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice “based on the certain and imminent threat of violation of the rights to life and personal integrity that subsists against […] Wong Ho Wing.”72 On January 5, 2010, the 53rd Criminal Court of the Province of Lima considered that this application was inadmissible, finding that what was sought was the inadmissibility of extradition and that the arguments had already been analyzed in the decision of April 24, 2009 (supra para. 70).73 On February 4, 2010, the representative filed an appeal against this decision,74 which was confirmed on June 30, 2010.75 The representative filed an appeal based on constitutional injury which was declared inadmissible on August 5, 2011, because the Constitutional Court had already ruled on another constitutional remedy (infra paras. 81 to 83).76 75. On December 9, 2009, a passive extradition hearing was held before the Permanent Criminal Chamber.77 On December 11, 2009, the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Peru advised the Permanent Criminal Chamber that the People’s Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China had decided not to impose the death penalty on Wong Ho Wing, if he was extradited and then convicted, “even if his offense is legally subject to the death penalty”78 (infra para. 92.c). 76. On December 15, the Permanent Criminal Chamber ordered the hearing of October 5, 2009, to be nullified so that the parties could present their arguments concerning the note from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China (supra para. 75)79 69 Cf. Note of August 25, 2009 (evidence file, folios 8272 and 8273). 70 Cf. Opinion of the Assistant Supreme Prosecutor of October 2, 2009 (evidence file, folios 7965 to 7967). 71 Cf. Decision of October 5, 2009, of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file, folios 101 and 102). 72 Application for habeas corpus of October 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 105). 73 Cf. Judgment of the 53rd Criminal Court of the Province of Lima of January 5, 2010 (evidence file, folio 161). 74 Cf. Appeal of February 4, 2010 (evidence file, folios 183 and 184). 75 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima of June 30, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1521 to 1526). 76 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of August 5, 2011, and separate opinion of Judges Álvarez Miranda and Vergara Gotelli giving reasons for their vote (evidence file, folios 6416 and 6417). 77 Cf. Record of the hearing of December 9, 2009, before the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file, folio 8278). 78 140). 79 Note of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Republic of Peru of December 11, 2009 (evidence file, folio Cf. Decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of December 15, 2009 (evidence file, folio 142).