38 being sought is in an utterly defenseless position since it is the Executive Branch that issues the final decision on extradition. Through his legal defense, the person whose extradition is being sought can employ the mechanisms he is authorized to use to further his cause. Indeed this is his right under the Peruvian Constitution. Article two –paragraph twenty-three- provides that”Every Person has a right to legitimate self-defense. (..) As previously mentioned, the extradition process must follow the established parameters and procedures. Once the Supreme Court’s Second Permanent Criminal Chamber has issued its report, the Executive Branch must still issue its final decision. The Executive Branch is the only authority that can grant extradition. Therefore, the person whose extradition is being sought must be ready to exercise his right of defense. Then, too (…), the judicial authorities of the People’s Republic of China have undertaken a steadfast commitment not to order the death penalty; in the final analysis there is no imminent risk that granting extradition would imperil Mr. 60 Wong Ho Wing’s life and personal integrity. 111. Mr. Luis Lamas Puccio appealed this ruling and, on April 14, 2010, the Lima Superior Court’s Third Criminal Chamber for Proceedings involving Jailed Prisoners, issued Decision No. 300 in which it, too, declared the petition of habeas corpus to be out of order. The following were among the reasons cited by the Court for denying the petition: 17.- A reading of the constitutional petition under review in this proceeding shows that although the petitioner challenges the Supreme Court’s processing of the extradition request and its decision on the matter, the respondents he named in his petition are the Constitutional President of the Republic –Alan García Pérez- and Peru’s Minister of Justice José Antonio García Belaúnde, claiming they violated his constitutional rights to life and personal integrity. However, he does not name as respondents the justices on the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber, who were the authorities who signed the decision of January 26, 2010. That being the case, this court is not being called upon to issue any finding with respect to the conduct of those justices. However, they did issue their advisory decision expressing the view that the Chinese Government’s extradition request should go forward, considering the commitment undertaken NOT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY on the individual whose extradition is being sought should he be found guilty (argument 7). (…) in processing the extradition of Mr. Wong Ho Wing, the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber issued an advisory decision on January 28, 2010 in which the majority agree that the extradition request is in order, which means that if the normal procedures established under our legal system are followed, the next step will be that the Executive Branch issues its decision, which it has not yet done. 19.- The Executive Branch will have to take the political decision to either grant or deny extradition. Its decision cannot be deemed arbitrary or illegal; instead, it is a legal mandate. There is nothing to suggest that the respondents named in this petition are acting in a manner contrary to the law. This matter has not even been debated in the Council of Ministers, as the case is still with the Ministry of Justice’s Commission on Extraditions. (…) Their concern to ensure that the extraditurus does not face the death penalty has been amply demonstrated. That concern is underscored in the decision taken by the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber, a fact that the Executive Branch will surely take into account. 60 Annex 40. Decision delivered in the Constitutional Habeas Corpus Proceeding No. 05-10. Attachment to the brief received from the State on July 16, 2010.