36 laundering; hence, the request for extradition presented by the court authorities of the People’s 51 Republic of China in connection with that crime must be deemed out of order. 103. On that same day, Judge Sócrates Mauro Zevallos Soto issued his separate vote on the advisory decision in which he wrote that the request should be declared “OUT OF ORDER on all points.” He also wrote that the proposed extradition “does not meet the formal requirements that our domestic laws prescribe.”52 104. On February 3, 2010, the President of the Supreme Court sent a communiqué to the Minister of Justice informing him of the contents of the advisory decision that the Supreme Court had issued on January 27, 2010.53 105. On February 4, 2010, Luis Lamas Puccio filed an appeal to challenge the January 5, 2010 decision declaring the petition of habeas corpus out of order.54 106. On February 5, 2010, the Permanent Criminal Chamber issued an order to the effect that “because this is the vacation period, the Magistrates Counselors and Justices of this Supreme Court cannot be called upon to serve in this collegiate body;” therefore, acting in accordance with Article 146 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, the Permanent Criminal Chamber tapped the most senior members serving on the Lima Superior Court bench to serve on the Supreme Court.55 107. On February 9, 2010, Luis Lamas Puccio filed another petition of habeas corpus against the “certain and imminent threat of violation of Wong Ho Wing’s rights to life and to personal integrity.” The respondents named in the petition were the President of the Republic, Alan García Pérez, Minister of Justice Aurelio Pastor Valdivieso, and Minister of Foreign Affairs José Antonio García Belaunde. In his petition of habeas corpus, Luis Lamas Puccio asserted the following: As for the “Commitment not to apply the death penalty”, presented by the Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China, through the respective exchange of diplomatic notes, the letter was addressed to the Office of the President of the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber (…) as early as December 10, 2009. In other words, just forty-four days after the Judge of Callao’s Seventh Criminal Court sent notification to the Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China. This reveals a blatantly illegal intent on the part of the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber, which was to endeavor to advance the Chinese government’s interests in every respect. The omission had to be corrected within a maximum of thirty days (…). Two months and ten days after it was done, the “extradition hearing” was nullified so as to be able to get the “Commitment not to apply the death penalty,” presented by the Chinese ambassador, introduced into the extradition process; 51 Annex 32. Advisory decision issued by the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber on January 27, 2010, Extradition No. 03-2009. Attachment to the communication received from the State on March 27, 2010. 52 Annex 32. Separate Vote of Judge Sócrates Mauro Zevallos Soto on the Advisory Decision issued by the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber on January 27, 2010, Extradition No. 03-2009. Attachment to the communication received from the State on March 27, 53 Annex 33. Communiqué No. 806-2010-SG-CS-PJ dated February 3, 2010. 54 Annex 34. Appeal filed to challenge the decision delivered on the petition of habeas corpus. H..C. Case No 44215-09 (53rd J.P. Lima). Attachment to the communication received from the State on March 27, 2010. 55 Annex 35. February 5, 2010 order issued in Extradition Case 03-2009. Attachment to the brief received from the petitioner on February 19, 2010.