- 26 - 83. Based on the foregoing conclusions, the Constitutional Court declared that the application was admissible and “order[ed] the Peruvian State, represented by the Executive Branch, to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China.” In addition, it “urge[d] the Peruvian State, represented by the Executive Branch, to proceed in accordance with the provisions of article 4(a) of the Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Peru and the People’s Republic of China.95 84. The public attorneys of the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs, and the Presidency of the Council of Ministers submitted requests to clarify the judgment of the Constitutional Court.96 On June 9, 2011, the Constitutional Court issued a decision in which it indicated that, “regarding the request to clarify the reasons why it had considered that the diplomatic assurances offered by the People’s Republic of China were insufficient, [it recalled] that at the time the [judgment] was delivered, the case file did not contain any of the diplomatic assurances referred to by the public attorneys who were requesting the clarification”; rather, it only included information on the promulgation of the eighth amendment that annulled the death penalty for the offense of smuggling ordinary merchandise, which did “not constitute diplomatic assurances.”97 The diplomatic assurances were incorporated into the case file following the delivery of this judgment on July 7, 2011.98 On this basis, the Constitutional Court considered that conclusions 9 and 10 of the judgment constituted material errors (supra para. 81),99 and therefore amended them as follows: [The diplomatic assurances offered by the People’s Republic of China are insufficient to ensure that the death penalty will not be imposed on Wong Ho Wing]. This is because, since the case file does not contain any diplomatic assurances provided to the Peruvian State by the Republic of China, it has not been proved that real protection of the right to life has been ensured. Also it is communis opinio that the mere risk that the death penalty could be applied in the requesting State prevents the requested State from authorizing extradition. Indeed, in the case of Yin Fong, Kwok v. Australia of October 23, 2009, the Human Rights Committee emphasized that: ‘It is not necessary to prove […] that the author “will be sentenced to death, but that there is a ‘real risk’ that the death penalty will be imposed on her. 95 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of May 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 281). 96 Cf. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of June 9, 2011 (evidence file, folio 291). 97 Ruling of the Constitutional Court of June 9, 2011 (evidence file, folios 295 and 296). 98 Cf. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of June 9, 2011 (evidence file, folio 296). 99 Conclusions 9 and 10 of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of May 24, 2011, established that: “9. In this case, this Court considers that the diplomatic assurances offered by the People’s Republic of China are insufficient to ensure that the death penalty will not be imposed on Wong Ho Wing. This is because, in the United Nations, the requesting State has not demonstrated that it guarantees the real protection of the right to life, because it allows extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Also, it is known in international circles that the death penalty is not imposed objectively, but is influenced by public opinion. Indeed, the Human Rights Council in the Report A/HRC/WG.6/4/CHN/2, of January 6, 2009, emphasized that ‘16. In 2005, the Government of China explained to the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions that the death penalty is applicable only to “extremely serious crimes” and that one of the factors leading to its use in that context is public opinion.” 10. Bearing in mind the report cited, this Court finds that the People’s Republic of China does not grant the necessary and sufficient guarantees to safeguard the right to life of Wong Ho Wing, because, as revealed by the report of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, one of the factors to impose the death penalty in that country is public opinion. In addition, it should be recalled that, in the instant case, the extradition of the beneficiary would not be in order, because the principle of reciprocity is not respected, since the offenses based on which the extradition is sought are not punished with the death penalty in the Peruvian State. Consequently, the Peruvian State must comply with its obligation to try Wong Ho Wing in accordance with the provisions of article 4(a) of the Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Peru and the People’s Republic of China.” Judgment of the Constitutional Court of May 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 279 and 280).