31 for the crime of which Mr. Wong Ho Wing was accused and the sentence it carried in the People’s Republic of China, the court wrote the following: (…) having carefully examined the petitioner’s arguments on this aspect of the petition, we find that the decision delivered and being challenged does not state clearly and unequivocally that the petitioner cannot be extradited to stand trial for the crimes he is alleged to have committed, the ultimate punishment for which is death. He cannot be extradited because Peru has a law expressly prohibiting extradition in such cases, as we have established in previous case law. It is the undersigned’s opinion, therefore, that the advisory decision of January 20, 2009 does not adequately explain this point. Therefore, in the instant case, there is evidence of an infringement of that basic guarantee of the administration of justice; the content of that decision is in need of revision to make an even stronger case for this argument, so that the beneficiary’s basic rights will not be violated in the extradition process, which is the very purpose that a well-reasoned decision is to serve in the 36 regular court system. 87. Based on this ruling, Lima’s 56th Special Criminal Court upheld in part the constitutional petition of habeas corpus, declared null and void the advisory decision that the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court delivered on January 20, 2009, and ordered that a new decision be issued. This court authority also declared the release request to be unfounded and out of order.37 88. On April 8, 2009, Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s defense counsel filed an appeal with Lima’s 56th Special Criminal Court, challenging the April 2, 2009 decision. The following were among the arguments made in the petition: The decision contains contradictions (…) on the one hand it upheld the petition of habeas corpus, declared the advisory decision that the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court delivered to be null and void, and ordered that the latter issue a new decision, as called for; on the other hand, however, it held that the petition was out of order with respect to the petitioner’s application for release, when in fact the real purpose of habeas corpus is to protect 38 the right to freedom, which is the very right that has been denied in this case. 89. On June 15, 2009, the Lima Superior Court’s Second Special Criminal Chamber for Cases Involving Jailed Prisoners issued its decision on this petition in which it upheld the decision that Lima’s 56th Special Criminal Court delivered on April 2, 2009. 90. On October 2, 2009, the National Human Rights Coordinator filed an amicus brief with the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, in the extradition case being prosecuted against Mr. Wong Ho Wing. In that brief, the National Human Rights Coordinator underscored the “importance” of the case, which has “clear public content and is fundamental to the survival of the rule of law: she argued that democracy is built upon respect for human rights, the most cherished of which 36 Annex 20. Decision of April 2, 2009, delivered on the constitutional habeas corpus petition, 2940-2009 (003-09-HC). Attachment to the brief received from the State on May 15, 2009. 37 Annex 20. Decision of April 2, 2009, delivered on the constitutional habeas corpus petition, 2940-2009 (003-09-HC). Attachment to the brief received from the State on May 15, 2009. 38 Annex 21. Appeal filed on April 8, 2009. Attachment to the brief received from the State on May 15, 2009.