- 30 The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People’s Republic of China to Peru informed the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice that “the People’s Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China has taken the following decision: if the extradition from Peru to China is executed, and if […] Wong Ho Wing is tried by a court and found guilty, the court will not impose the death penalty […] on […] Wong Ho Wing, even though his crime is subject to the death penalty by law.” In addition, the Ambassador advised that he had “full authorization to undertake that the death penalty would not be imposed on […] Wong Ho Wing if the extradition request of the Government of the People’s Republic of China was found admissible.”121 d. Fourth diplomatic note: note of December 29, 2009 The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People’s Republic of China to Peru sent the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice a copy and the translation of the decision issued by the People’s Supreme Court, establishing that: “[if he is extradited from Peru to China and if] a court finds that Wong Ho Wing is guilty, the court will not sentence Wong Ho Wing to death (including the immediate death penalty or the death penalty with a temporary two-year suspension) […], even though his crime is legally subject to the death penalty.”122 93. Following the second advisory decision of the Supreme Court of Justice and up until August 2014, the following assurances were provided: e. Fifth diplomatic note: note of February 22, 2011 The Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China informed the Minister of Justice of Peru, that “the Government Chino undertakes formally, apart from the commitment not to apply the death sentence […], to invite the Peruvian Government to send observers to be present during the hearings held in [the proceedings] against Mr. Wong and to monitor compliance with the [eventual] judgment.”123 f. Sixth diplomatic note: note of June 10, 2011 The Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China advised the Minister of Justice, attaching the translation of article 12 of the Chinese Criminal Code, that he officially confirmed that the eighth amendment of the Chinese Criminal Code would be applicable to Wong Ho Wing’s case “because a preliminary hearing has not yet been held; which proves that the annulment of the death penalty will be applicable to him; thus, there is no risk that this punishment will be imposed.”124 g. Seventh diplomatic note: received on December 22, 2011 The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China addressed a communication to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru (supra para. 87), in which it indicated that: Based on the decision of the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China, in a note dated December 11, 2009 […], the Chinese party made a formal undertaking to the Peruvian party that the death penalty would not be imposed on [Wong Ho Wing], even if he was tried and convicted following his extradition to China. This undertaking by the Chinese party continues to be in effect. With the entry into force of the eighth amendment to the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China on May 1, 2011, the death penalty has been annulled for the offense of smuggling ordinary 121 Notes Nos. 200/2009, 201/2009 and 202/2009 sent by the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People’s Republic of China to Peru to the President of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and the judge of the Seventh Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of El Callao (evidence file, folios 964, 1116 and 1117). 122 Note No. 204/2009 of December 29, 2009, sent by the Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to the Republic of Peru to the President of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file, folios 1622 and 1624). 123 Note No. 010/2011 of February 22, 2011, sent by the Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to the Republic of Peru to the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Peru (evidence file, folio 5755). 124 296). Note No. 036/2011 of June 10, 2011, cited in the ruling of the Constitutional Court of June 9, 2011 (evidence file, folio