- 24 - 77. On December 21, 2009, a new passive extradition hearing was held before the Permanent Criminal Chamber.80 On that date, the Chamber ordered that the translation of article 151 of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China should be requested and added to the case file, together with the undertaking of the People’s Supreme Court mentioned in the Embassy’s note of December 11, 200981 (supra para. 75). On December 29, 2009, the People’s Republic of China again sent the translation of article 151 of the Criminal Code (supra para. 69).82 C.2) Second stage of the process (from the second advisory decision to date) 78. On January 27, 2010, the Permanent Criminal Chamber issued the advisory decision in which it decided, by the legal majority, “the passive extradition request […] in relation to the offenses of evasion of customs duty and bribery against the People’s Republic of China,” established in articles 153, 154, 389 and 390 of the Chinese Criminal Code.83 Regarding the punishment for the offense of evasion, the Chamber noted the possibility that the death penalty could be applied to this offense. However, it considered that the decision of the People’s Supreme Court of December 8, 2009, “reveals an evident undertaking by the judicial authorities of the People’s Republic of China not to impose the death penalty on the individual whose extradition is requested if he is found criminally responsible. Therefore, it should be considered that there is no real risk of the application of the death penalty or a similar sanction to this individual in the requesting State.”84 It also declared, unanimously, the inadmissibility of the extradition request in relation to moneylaundering, because it ran counter to the principle of double jeopardy.85 The Chamber conditioned the return of Wong Ho Wing: [T]o the undertaking made by the competent authorities of the People’s Republic of China not to impose the death penalty, if he should be convicted; in addition, it should advise the Peruvian State of the sentence handed down to the [individual extradited] when this is delivered.86 79. Following the second advisory decision, on February 9, the representative filed a third application for habeas corpus “against the certain and imminent threat of violation of the rights to life and personal integrity [of Wong Ho Wing], against the President of the Republic of Peru, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”87 On February 25, 2010, the 42nd Special 80 Cf. Record of the hearing of December 21, 2009, before the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file, folio 8303). 81 Cf. Decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of December 21, 2009 (evidence file, folios 144 and 145). 82 This was added to the case file the following day. Cf. note from the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People’s Republic of China to the Republic of Peru of December 29, 2009 (evidence file, folio 149), and advisory decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of January 27, 2010 (evidence file, folio 165). 83 Cf. Advisory decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of January 27, 2010 (evidence file, folios 169 and 173). 84 Advisory decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of January 27, 2010 (evidence file, folios 171 and 172). 85 Cf. Advisory decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of January 27, 2010 (evidence file, folio 173). 86 Advisory decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of January 27, 2010 (evidence file, folios 173 and 174). 87 The representative argued that, “from the start, the extradition process […], has been plagued with a series of grave errors and omissions”; among these, he underlined that: (1) “[t]he extradition request was not accompanied by any evidence in relation to the charges it contained”; (2) “[t]he extradition request was not accompanied either by the provision of the Chinese Criminal Code relating to the offense that was the reason for requesting the extradition, which is punished by the death penalty”; (3) the advisory decision and the “opinion of the Special Supranational Public Attorney “ignore the binding nature of the decision issued by the [Inter-American Commission] that the Government of Peru refrain from extraditing the said Chinese citizen,” and (4) the undertaking not to apply the death penalty was delivered “[44] days after the Ambassador was notified, [when] the time limit was [30] days according to article 2 of Supreme Decree No. 016-2006-JUS.” Application for habeas corpus of February 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 188 and 191).