43 requisite “certain and imminent threat, since there was no certainty as to what decision the Peruvian Government would make regarding the extraditurus’ fate; the petitioner’s claim that the Government of the People’s Republic of China will not comply with the commitment undertaken in the decision of December 8, 2009, pledging to the Peruvian Government that it would not apply the death penalty with respect to the extraditurus, cannot be deemed a certainty.”72 For his part, Justice Calle Hayen issued a separate vote where he wrote that the petition should be deemed unfounded because the “certainty and imminence” requirements had not been met since, in the January 27, 2010 decision of the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber, the latter held that there was no real risk that the death penalty would be applied. Justice Calle Hayen also wrote that on April 7, 2011, the Peruvian State was informed of the approval of the legal amendment abolishing the death penalty in the case of the crime of smuggling ordinary merchandise.73 123. After a request from the Executive Branch, filed on June 2 and 8, 2011 seeking a clarification, on June 9, 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the requests for clarification to be wellfounded. In response to these requests, the Constitutional Court ordered correction of the following material errors: 1.1 Pursuant to arguments 7 and 11 of this clarification ruling, arguments Nos. 9 and 10 of STC 2278-2010-PHC/TC are hereby corrected and shall read as follows: ‘9. (…) Because the case file does not contain any diplomatic assurance that the People’s Republic of China may have offered to the Peruvian State, it has not been proven that real protection of the right to life has been guaranteed. Furthermore, it is communis opinio that the mere risk that the death penalty might be enforced in the requesting State prevents the requested State from authorizing extradition. In effect, in the Case of Yin Fong Kwok v. Australia, dated October 23, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Committee wrote that: it is not necessary to prove (…) that the author "will" be sentenced to death but that there is a "real risk" that the death penalty will be imposed. 10. Bearing in mind that no diplomatic guarantees appear in the Case File, this Court deems that it has not been proven that the Honorable People’s Republic of China has granted necessary and sufficient guarantees to protect Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s right to life. Therefore, the Peruvian State must comply with its obligation to bring Mr. Wong Ho Wing to trial, pursuant to Article 3 of the Criminal Code.” 1.2 Point 2 of the operative part of the judgment shall read as follows: ‘2. To urge the Peruvian State, as represented by the Executive Branch, to act in accordance with 74 Article 3 of the Criminal Code.” 72 Annex 51. Separate vote of Justices Álvarez Miranda and Vergara Gotelli. Attachment to the State’s communication of July 12, 2011. 73 74 Annex 51. Separate vote of Justice Calle Hayen. Attachment to the State’s communication of July 12, 2011. Annex 52. Decision of the Constitutional Court, dated June 9, 2011. Attachment to the State’s communication dated August 3, 2011.