42 day by the Office of the Director for Coordination with the Administration of Justice, in which it wrote that under the Transparency and Access to Public Information Act: [t]he right of access to public information cannot be exercised with respect to information prepared or obtained by the legal advisors or attorneys for organs of Government and which, if made public, might reveal the strategy to be followed in handling or defending an administrativelaw or court case, or any other type of information protected by the professional confidentiality that an attorney must have with his or her client until the process concludes. 3. (…) inasmuch as no final decision has as yet been made on the question of Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition under Article 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicable law would be Article 17(4) of Law No. 27806, the Access to Public Information Act, under the terms of which 70 the right of access to public information cannot be exercised until the process has concluded.” 121. On May 24, 2011, the Constitutional Court delivered its ruling on the remedy exercised by Mr. Lamas Puccio seeking protection against violation of a constitutionally-protected right, in which he challenged the ruling declaring his April 14, 2010 petition of habeas corpus to be out of order. The Constitutional Court’s ruling ordered the Executive Branch to refrain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China: (…) the Court finds that the People’s Republic of China did not provide necessary and sufficient guarantees that Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s right to life would be protected. As stated in the Report of the United Nations Human Rights Council, public opinion is one of the factors that China considers when deciding whether to apply the death penalty. Another factor to consider is that in the instant case, Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition would not be in order, since the principle of reciprocity is not present because the crimes for which his extradition is sought are not capital offenses in Peru. Therefore, the Peruvian State must act on its obligation to bring Mr. Wong Ho Wing to trial, as prescribed in Article 4(a) of the Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Peru and the People’s Republic of China. 11. The foregoing notwithstanding, some comment is in order concerning Letter N.O. No. 023 2011, dated April 6, 2011, which reports that the Eighth Amendment of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China has been approved, which introduces changes in that Criminal Code with regard to the crime of smuggling common merchandise. There is nothing in the case file sub judice indicating that the change to the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China has been officially reported to the Peruvian State via diplomatic channels. Nor is there any mention of whether the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China recognizes the retroactivity of criminal law when it works in the accused’ favor. This Court, therefore, finds that the letter in question cannot be understood and interpreted as a 71 guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied in the case of the extraditurus. 122. Justices Álvarez Miranda and Vergara Gotelli cast separate votes indicating that the petition should be declared unfounded on the grounds that it failed to show the existence of the 70 71 Annex 50. State Report No. 299-2010-JUS/PPES, received at the IACHR on November 11, 2010. Annex 51. Decision delivered in Case No. 02278-2010-PHC/TC, dated May 24, 2011. Attachment to the State’s communication of July 12, 2011.