40 115. On September 23, 2010, the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber dismissed the prosecutors’ request on the grounds that it was not the function of the State Public Prosecutor’s Office to intervene in proceedings to hear motions for provisional release.64 116. On September 24, 2010, the representative of the People’s Republic of China, Moisés Aguirre Lucero, appeared before the President of the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber in the extradition process being prosecuted against Mr. Wong Ho Wing. He was there to request the “Nullity of the Hearing on the Case” and to ask that the case hearing be rescheduled. His arguments were basically as follows: 2. In my capacity as a principal in the present case, I should have been notified to be present for the hearing in the case. Nevertheless, the Honorable Chamber over which you preside did not send a summons to the People’s Republic of China to be present for and intervene in the hearing. (…) 5. Only today did I learn of the decision that this Honorable Chamber delivered on September 23, 2010 (…) 6. Contrary to what was stated in the aforementioned decision, the People’s Republic of China which I represent did not intervene in the hearing because, as I said, it was NEVER notified, despite the fact that it is an accredited party to the case and acknowledged as such by the Honorable Chamber over which you preside. (…) 10. Under Peruvian law, any persons –including States- who are parties to a case are entitled to defend their interests, especially if we are recognized parties to the case in question. (…) 11. (…) Article 14(3) of the Peruvian Constitution provides that no person shall be denied the 65 right of defense. 117. On September 27, 2010, the supranational prosecutor and other prosecutor from the Ministry of Justice filed a brief with the President of the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber in which they filed an appeal to challenge the September 23, 2010 decision. In that brief, they wrote the following: 1. (...) the Supreme Court has indicated that the Executive Branch does not have any legitimate interest as it is not party to the present case; it is called upon to intervene only in the final decision, once the judicial phase of the extradition process has been completed, as provided in articles 514 and 522, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. On those grounds THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE IN THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AND THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL SUPRANATIONAL PROSECUTOR HAVE BEEN DENIED ANY ROLE IN PROCESSING THE APPLICATION FOR PROVISIONAL RELEASE FILED BY MR. WONG HO WING, thereby violating the rights to due process and effective judicial protection with respect to the Ministry of Justice’s right of defense as a third party with a legitimate interest. (…) 4. Mr. Wong Ho Wing has requested provisional release in lieu of detention. The Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Supranational Prosecutor, whose role is to defend the interests of the State –in this case, the Executive Branch-, should not 64 Annex 44. September 23, 2010 decision in Extradition Case No. 03-2009. Attachment to the State’s October 25, 2010 communication. 65 Annex 45. Brief requesting the nullity of the hearing in case No. 03-2009, presented on September 24, 2010. Attachment to the State’s October 25, 2010 brief.