37 (…) granting passive extradition and sending Chinese citizen WONG HO WING back to the People’s Republic of China (…) would endanger his very life and personal integrity, since materially speaking the Peruvian authorities would have no way to exercise any oversight to ensure that Mr. Wong Ho Wing was not executed once he was under the jurisdiction of his country of origin; he gave several reasons , among them the fact that not even the international authorities themselves have any access to the Chinese prison system, which has been discredited and is deemed untrustworthy, as attested to by repeated human rights reports on the number of 56 persons executed every year in that country (…). 108. On February 9, 2010, Lima’s 42nd Special Criminal Court agreed to hear the constitutional petition of habeas corpus.57 On February 19, 2010, Mr. Luis Lamas Puccio asked the Administrative Secretary of the Supreme Court to give him an authenticated copy of Communiqué No. 806-2010-SG-CS-PJ, through which the file for Extradition Case No. 03-2009 is sent to the Ministry of Justice for the appropriate purposes.58 109. On February 21, 2010, Mr. Luis Lamas Puccio filed a request with Lima’s 42nd Special Criminal Court asking it to issue its ruling on the petition of habeas corpus. He argued that there was a risk that the Council of Ministers might issue a supreme resolution on Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s passive extradition and in the process disregard what the IACHR had instructed in its precautionary measure.59 110. On February 25, 2010, Lima’s 42nd Special Criminal Court issued a ruling on the petition of habeas corpus, declaring it out of order. The Court’s reasoning was as follows: (…) Having examined the records of the proceedings, it is clear that in general, the facts that the petitioner recounts do not suggest that the respondents herein named (…) might engage in acts that could violated the constitutional rights of Mr. Wong Ho Wing (the rights to life and to personal integrity); what Lamas Puccio does in this petition is to question the way in which the extradition process has been conducted. (…) However, the constitutional habeas corpus process does not involve the taking of evidence; therefore, this constitutional proceeding does not afford the plaintiff an opportunity to show how his rights have been affected by the problems that, in his view, have arisen as his passive extradition was being processed; perhaps his claim should have been heard in the ordinary jurisdiction. (…) Another aspect that deserves mention is the fact that in issuing its finding on the question of extradition, what the Supreme Court does is prepare a Technical Legal Report on the Legality or Illegality of an extradition, as provided in article 37 of the Peruvian Constitution; only the Executive Branch has the authority to grant extradition. While its decision follows on the heels of the Supreme Court’s report, this does not alter the fact that the person whose extradition is 56 Annex 36. Petition of habeas corpus dated February 9, 2010. Attachment to the communication received from the State on March 27, 2010. 57 Annex 37. February 9, 2010 order issued by Lima’s 42nd Criminal Court, H.C. No 05-10. Attachment to the communication received from the State on March 27, 2010. 58 Annex 38. Brief dated February 19, 2010, signed by Luis Lamas Puccio. Attachment to the brief received from the petitioner on February 19, 2010. 59 Annex 39. Brief dated February 21, 2010, signed by Luis Lamas Puccio. Attachment to the brief received from the petitioner on February 22, 2010.