- 65 extradited; however, if an extradition decision may affect the exercise of a right protected by the Convention, it is reasonable to require certain obligations of the Requesting State aimed at preventing the violation […].270 200. The Court notes that, following the delivery of the judgment of the Constitutional Court in May 2011, that court issued a ruling clarifying it in which, regard the existence of new elements (the diplomatic assurances and the annulment of the death penalty for the offense for which the extradition of Wong Ho Wing was sought), it indicated that “the belated awareness of the content [of the diplomatic assurances] cannot change the sense of the decision adopted […], because it is now constitutional res judicata.”271 The court that decided to change the provisional detention of Wong Ho Wing ruled similarly,272 and the Supreme Court of Justice also273 201. In addition, in a ruling of March 12, 2013, the Constitutional Court rejected the possibility of extraditing Wong Ho Wing for the offense of bribery. When denying an appeal for interpretation filed by the Public Attorney responsible for Judicial Matters of the Ministry of Justice,274 the Constitutional Court noted, regarding the possibility of extraditing Wong Ho Wing r the offense of bribery, that “with the pretext of ‘clarifying’ an element of its judgment” it was sought “to ‘amend’ its decision, so that it would express something that it had not done originally, also affecting the guarantee of res judicata.” It indicated that “pursuant to the content of both the judgment and the clarifying ruling issued by the Constitutional Court, […] they did not make an individual or separate analysis of the offenses that the individual sought is accused of, not only because this was not in order […], but also because the relevant point was to determine whether the right to life of the beneficiary in the habeas corpus proceeding was threatened if the extradition request was declared admissible” (supra para. 90). 202. Nevertheless, the Court underscores that, at the date of the delivery of this Judgment, the Executive Branch has not taken a final decision in this case. According to Peru’s domestic laws, although extradition involves a joint process, it corresponds exclusively to the Executive Branch to grant or reject extradition, in those cases where the Supreme Court has considered it admissible, such as in this one (supra para. 57). Expert witness García Toma explained that the judgment of the Constitutional Court has not been contravened, insofar as this decision consists merely in an obligation “to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing,” and this has been complied with rigorously to date. 270 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of May 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 278 and 279). 271 Ruling of the Constitutional Court of June 9, 2011 (evidence file, folio 297). 272 Cf. Decision of the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao of March 10, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6462). 273 The Supreme Court indicated, when it was asked to issue a complementary advisory decision, that, “in fact, there have been two final decision, one of an advisory nature (of the Judiciary) and the other of a binding nature (of the Constitutional Court), that the Executive Branch must comply with, taking into account the legal provisions (article 113 of the Code of Constitutional Procedure).” Decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice March 14, 2012 (evidence file, folio 372 and 373). This article establishes: “Article 113. Effects of Judgments: The court’s judgments are binding on the public authorities and shall have full effects for all of them. They determine the State branches or entities to which the disputed attributes and jurisdictions correspond, and annul unlawful provisions, decisions or acts. In addition, they decide, when appropriate, what is admissible in the legal situations produced by such administrative acts. When there is a negative conflict of jurisdictions or attributes, the judgment, in addition to deciding the appropriate responsibility, may indicate, as appropriate, a time frame within which the State branch or entity in question should exercise this.” Code of Constitutional Procedure (evidence file, folio 8587). 274 On that occasion, the said attorney expressly asked if it was possible to extradite Wong Ho Wing for the offense of bribery, for which the death penalty was not established, taking into account that “since the Constitutional Court’s judgment makes no distinction between the offenses that result in protection by the judgment, the extradition can be carried out for the offense that does not entail the risk of the death penalty and, in that eventuality, the State’s action would be aligned with the execution of the Constitutional Court’s judgment.” Judgment of the Constitutional Court of March 12, 2013 (evidence file, folio 376).