*
4.
On April 23, 2012, the time frame expired that had been granted to the State
to forward its observations on the brief of April 16, 2012, in particular, on the legal
effects of the decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of
Justice in relation to the extradition procedure and the decisions of the Constitutional
Court. At the time this order is issued, the Inter-American Court has not received from
the State either these observations or a request for an extension of the time frame so
that it can comply by submitting the information requested by the Court.
5.
In its decision of March 14, 2012, the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the
Supreme Court of Justice declared: (a) “purposeless” the holding of a complementary
public hearing in the extradition procedure; (b) “purposeless, owing to the request
being unfounded [sustracción de la material], the emission of [a] new advisory
decision or ‘complementary advisory decision’ as the Ministry of Justice is seeking, and
that the Executive must adopt the decision provided for by law”; (c) “the proceedings
in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Peru had concluded” in
relation to this extradition request. The grounds for this decision were as follows:
In these extradition proceedings, it appears that two jurisdictions, the ordinary and the
constitutional, have already issued final rulings[;]
The Constitutional Court, in a judgment […] of May 24, 2011, declared admissible the
application for [habeas corpus] that has been filed and ordered the Peruvian State,
represented by the Executive, to abstain from extraditing […] Wong Ho Wing [and] urged [it
to] proceed in accordance with article 4 of the Extradition Treaty between the Republic of
Peru and the Peoples’ Republic of China[;]
Likewise, it appears that, in an Explanatory Decision, the Constitutional Court […], on June
9, 2011, clarified, at the request of the Attorney General’s Office, the ruling in its judgment,
indicating: “2. To urge the Peruvian State, represented by the Executive, to proceed in
accordance with the provisions of article 3 of the Criminal Code[;]
This Supreme Chamber has already complied with its obligations by delivering the
respective ruling, which is the equivalent of an immutable judgment and it cannot be
amended by means of a so-called “complementary advisory decision”[;]
In this legal matter, there are […] two final rulings, one of an advisory nature (of the
Judiciary) and the other of a mandatory nature (of the Constitutional Court) that the
Executive must comply with, taking into account the provisions of the law […].
6.
The foregoing reveals that the decision of the Constitutional Court ordering the
domestic authorities not to extradite Wong Ho Wing, together with its clarification, has
not been modified by any subsequently judicial ruling, and that they are binding for
the Executive.
7.
Nevertheless, in order to have all the elements needed to decide the request
for provisional measures presented by the Inter-American Commission, the Court
requires the State to confirm, by May 25, 2012, at the latest:
a) The legal effects of the decision of March 14, 2012, of the Permanent
Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in relation to the extradition
procedure and whether, following this decision, according to domestic law, the
only requirement pending is the decision of the Executive;
b) The legal effects of the said decision in relation to the rulings of the
Constitutional Court ordering that Wong Ho Wing should not be extradited, and
5