- 29 [T]he purpose sought is that, […] with the pretext of “clarifying” one element of its judgment, [the Constitutional Court] “amend” its decision, so that it affirms something that it did not indicate at the time, also affecting the res judicata guarantee established in article 139(2) of the Constitution. [...]. That, in this regard, in accordance with the content of both the judgment and the clarification ruling issued by the Constitutional Court, it should be pointed out that in these decisions it did not make an individual or separate analysis of the offenses of which the applicant is accused, not only because this was not in order […], but also because what was relevant was to determine whether or not the right to life of the beneficiary of the habeas corpus proceeding was in danger if the extradition request was declared admissible.117 C.2.b) The actual situation 91. Following this last decision, the case file does not show that any new appeals have been filed against the judgment of the Constitutional Court or with regard to the extradition process before the Supreme Court. Consequently, at this time, the advisory decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of January 27, 2010, which finds extradition admissible and a binding prima facie ruling of the Constitutional Court of May 24, 2011, ordering the State to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing are both in force simultaneously. Since that time, the process has been in the hands of the Executive Branch, which has not taken a final decision in this regard. C.3) Diplomatic assurances granted by the People’s Republic of China in relation to the extradition of Wong Ho Wing 92. In this case, the following diplomatic assurances or notes haves been given to Peru by the People’s Republic of China progressively, between February 2009 and January 2010, when the second advisory decision was issued (supra para. 78): a. First diplomatic note: note of February 2, 2009 General Directorate No. 24 of the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China118 presented the following explanation to the Official Commission for Extraditions and Prisoner Transfers of the Ministry of Justice of Peru: A. Based on the nature of the offenses for which the extradition of Wong Ho Wing is requested and the provisions of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China, there is no possibility of imposing on him the punishment of life imprisonment or the death penalty. B. Chinese justice will impose criminal responsibilities on Wong Ho Wing based on the law and respecting fully the Extradition Treaty between the Governments of China and Peru.119 117 b. Second diplomatic note: note of August 25, 2009 The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People’s Republic of China to Peru sent the Supreme Court of Justice a note indicating that “[c]ase law exists from similar cases” where 15 years’ imprisonment has been imposed for acts with the same name, or the same offense, and involving an equally important sum and the amount of duty evaded, and where the modus operandi has also been similar, “there was, therefore, no possibility of imposing the death penalty on the person sought.”120 c. Third diplomatic note: notes of December 10 and 11, 2009 Decision of March 12, 2013, of the Constitutional Court (evidence file, folio 377). 118 This explanation was presented by the Consul of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Peru to the President of the Commission for Extraditions and Prisoner Transfers (evidence file, folio 1615). 119 Brief of the General Directorate No. 24 of the Ministry of Public Security of February 2, 2009 (evidence file, folios 67, 68 and 1617). 120 Brief No. 135/2009 of the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People’s Republic of China to Peru addressed to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 25, 2009 (evidence file, folio 2417).