- 66 203. This Court considers that, in May 2011, Wong Ho Wing obtained a ruling of the Constitutional Court, which ordered the Executive Branch to refrain from extraditing him. However, the Court takes note that, in this decision, the Constitutional Court found that, according to the circumstances that existed at the time, a risk to the right to life of Wong Ho Wing persisted, in view of the absence of the necessary and sufficient assurances to safeguard it.275 In its decision of June 2011, the Constitutional Court clarified that, when issuing its decision, it was unable to take into account the assurances that had been provided up until that time, because they were not included in the case file, and that the diplomatic notes it had provided information on the annulment of the death penalty, but did not explain its applicability to the case of Wong Ho Wing.276 Thus, the Constitutional Court was unable to assess either the annulment of the death penalty for the offense of smuggling ordinary merchandise and it applicability to Wong Ho Wing’s situation, or the subsequent diplomatic assurances provided by the People’s Republic of China, which this Court has been able to assess (supra paras. 146 to 188). 204. The Court notes that, following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the domestic judicial authorities have issued rulings indicating that it is not possible to review or amend the Constitutional Court’s decision. However, it considers that the State must decide, pursuant to its domestic law, how to proceed with the request to extradite Wong Ho Wing, bearing in mind that, at this time, there would be no risk to his rights to life and personal integrity if he is extradited, but, at the same, that there is a Constitutional Court decision that, prima facie, cannot be amended and that, in principle, is binding for the Executive Branch. 205. In addition, the Court takes into account that, as indicated by the State and uncontested by the representative or the Commission, under the laws of Peru, the Executive Branch’s discretionary acts may be subject to subsequent constitutional control. Expert witness García Toma expressed the same opinion, and explained that the decision of the Executive Branch, “although it is political, […] is not exempt from control, and this is because, following this decision, any person subject to extradition may appeal that decision before the corresponding judge, using the constitutional procedures indicated in the Code of Constitutional Procedure.”277 Thus, Wong Ho Wing is still able to obtain a judicial review of the said decision if he does not agree with it. The Court notes that the review by a judge or court is a basic requirement to ensure an adequate control and scrutiny of administrative acts that affect fundamental rights.278 In addition, it considers that the remedy used to contest the final decision in this matter must have suspensive effects, so that the measure is not implemented until the court hearing the appeal has issued a decision.279 275 Cf. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of May 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 280), and ruling of the Constitutional Court of June 9, 2011 (evidence file, folio 302). 276 Regarding the reasons why the diplomatic assurances granted by the People’s Republic of China had been considered insufficient, the Constitutional Court noted in its ruling of June 9, 2011, that “when the [Judgment] was delivered, the case file did not contain any of the diplomatic assurances to which […] the public attorney petitioner referred”; rather, “[t]he only documents it had were informative diplomatic notes” on the annulment of the death penalty for the offense of smuggling ordinary merchandise. The Constitutional Court indicated that it became aware of the existence of diplomatic assurances through the Inter-American Court’s order on provisional measures of May 28, 2010, but that these were “insufficient or inappropriate because, since it was unaware of the content of the said documents, and since the right to life was at stake, mere information on the amendment made in the objective criminal law of the People’s Republic of China was not enough; rather, it was necessary that the People’s Republic of China certify that, in no circumstance, would the death penalty be applied to the beneficiary of the habeas corpus. Therefore, in Decision No. 11 of the STC 2278-2010-PHC/TC, it regret[ted] that the information provided concerning the legislative amendment did not specify ‘whether the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China recognized the favorable retroactivity of the criminal law.’” Ruling of the Constitutional Court of June 9, 2011 (evidence file, folios 295 and 296). 277 Testimony of Víctor García Toma during the public hearing held in this case. 278 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 126, and Rights and guarantees of children in the context of migration and/or in need of international protection, supra, para. 140. 279 Cf. ECHR, Case of Čonka v. Belgium, No. 51564/99, Judgment of February 5, 2002, para. 79; Case of Gebremedhin