- 71 216. Even though, in his first statement, Wong Ho Wing indicated that the offense he was accused of was punishable by the death penalty and, during the extradition hearing, his representative underlined that China had not provided a copy of article 151 of its Criminal Code, the authorities did not request this information from the requesting State. To the contrary, the Second Transitory Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued the advisory decision in the extradition process, which was subsequently annulled by means of a habeas corpus (supra para. 70). Furthermore, neither did the authorities request the necessary and sufficient diplomatic assurances that the death penalty would not be imposed, which was also grounds for the annulment of the first advisory decision.301 217. Regarding these delays, the Permanent Criminal Chamber indicated in the second advisory decision that the delays in the processing of the request “were a result of the requesting State […] failing to comply promptly with the presentation of the essential supporting documents […] so as not to violate the supranational law on international agreements.”302 In this regard, it is important to point out that, even if the requesting State did not forward the complete documentation, it is the Peruvian State, as a State Party to the American Convention, that is obliged to conduct the extradition process in accordance with the obligations imposed by the American Convention, including that the process be conducted within a reasonable time. 218. Regarding the second stage of the process, once the annulment of the advisory decision was made final on June 15, 2009, a new decision was not issued until January 27, 2010 (supra para. 78). Between these dates, the Supreme Prosecutor gave his opinion on the request and several extradition hearings were held, the last on December 21, 2009. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the proceeding was twice as long as when the first advisory decision was issued, failing to comply with some of the legal deadlines. Thus, the Procedural Code establishes that, once the extradition hearing has been held, the Supreme Court has five days to issue the decision. In this case, the hearing was held on December 21, 2009, and the advisory decision was issued on January 27, 2010. 219. Following the issue of the advisory decision, the file was forwarded to the Ministry of Justice to start the procedure by which the Executive Branch would take a final decision on the extradition request. Over one year later, on May 24, 2011, the Constitutional Court “ordered the Peruvian State, represented by the Executive Branch, to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China.”303 Initially, the Executive interpreted that this decision meant that it could not extradite Wong Ho Wing. However, in November 2011, the Executive filed three different remedies or requests seeking a legal decision or interpretation that would allow it to extradite Wong Ho Wing without disregarding the decision of the Constitutional Court (supra paras. 86 to 90). Although, just as the presumed victim, the State authorities were using the remedies available under domestic law, it should be taken into account that all the remedies were declared inadmissible, considering that the Constitutional Court’s decision was res judicata, could not be amended, and was binding. In addition, the remedies were filed by the Executive Branch, which is responsible for taking the pending decision on extradition, and related to the Executive Branch’s options when deciding the extradition request. Therefore, contrary to the presumed victim, all the remedies filed directly affected the prolongation of the extradition process. Moreover, even though the last of these remedies was decided on March 12, 2013, more than two years later, the Executive Branch has still not decided the extradition request. 301 Cf. Decision of the Second Special Criminal Chamber for proceedings with the accused in prison of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima of June 15, 2009 (evidence file, folio 6228). 302 Advisory decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of January 27, 2010 (evidence file, folios 164 and 165). 303 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of May 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 281).