33 The Chinese Contracting Party officially informs the Peruvian Contracting Party that: The People’s Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China has made the following decision: If extradition from Peru to China is granted, should Huang Haiyong or Wong Ho Wing be found guilty through prosecution in the Court, the Court will not order the Death Penalty (including immediate execution of the Death Penalty and a temporary two-year stay thereof) for Huang Haiyong or Wong Ho Wing, even if by law his crime carries the death penalty. The Chinese Contracting Party hopes for a prompt decision from the Peruvian Contracting Party to grant the extradition of 44 Huang Haiyong or Wong Ho Wing from Peru to China. 96. On December 15, 2009, the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber issued an order to the following effect: The extradition hearing conducted on October 5, 2009, which appears at page 198 of the case file with this Chamber of the Supreme Court, was declared null and void; an order was given to inform the parties to the proceedings of the diplomatic notes so that they might properly exercise their rights of defense; December 21 of this year was the date set for the extradition 45 hearing (…) 97. On December 21, 2009 the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber issued an order in which it wrote that the translation of Article 151 of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China had allegedly not been requested; that translation was needed to “make a proper assessment of the lawfulness of the extradition request.” It also pointed out that the decision sent by the People’s Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China in which it “decided” that Mr. Wong Ho Wing would not be given the death penalty, was not enclosed. In this order, it commissioned the Office of the Clerk of the Permanent Criminal Court to take the necessary measures.46 98. That same day, Judge Sócrates Mauro Zevallos Soto issued a separate vote in favor of issuing the advisory decision in the passive extradition process based on the following reasons: i) The hearings held on October 5, 2009 and December 9, 2009 have been declared null and void; ii) the complainant has an obligation to provide all the materials required under Article 518 of the most recent Code of Criminal Procedure; iii) it is the function of the judge presiding over the preparatory investigation to gather all the information required under paragraph three of Article 47 521 of that Code of Criminal Procedure; iv) No additional information need be obtained. 99. On December 29, 2009, the Ambassador Extraordinaire and Plenipotentiary of the People’s Republic of China in the Republic of Peru sent a communication to the President of the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber enclosing a copy and translation of the resolution issued by the People’s Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China concerning the process seeking Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition. He also requested that the “Peruvian Contracting Party make its decision 44 45 Annex 26. Communication N.O. No. 200/2009. Attachment to the petitioner’s December 15, 2009. Annex 27. Order delivered on December 15, 2009 in Extradition Case No. 03-2009. communication received from the State on October 25, 2010. Attachment to the 46 Annex 28. Order of December 21, 2009. Extradition Case No. 03-2009. Attachment to the petitioner’s January 11, 2010 communication. 47 Annex 28. Separate vote of Judge Sócrates Mauro Zevallos Soto, dated December 21, 2009. Attachment to the petitioner’s January 11, 2010 communication.