47 course of action to follow in order to address the request in a manner compatible with the laws 85 governing administrative proceedings and the ensuing responsibilities.” 135. On February 9, 2012, the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights sent Communiqué No. 116-2012-JUS-DM, to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in reference to the proceeding in which Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s passive extradition was under consideration. The pertinent parts of that communication read as follows: (…) given the new fact reported in Communiqué No. 92-2012-SG-CS-PJ from your office, dated 06.01.2012, (…) enclosing Verbal Note No. 122/2011 from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, in which it reports that the Eighth Amendment of that country’s Criminal Code took effect on 01.05.2011; the new Criminal Code abolishes the death penalty for the crime of smuggling common merchandise, which is a crime that citizen Wong Ho Wing is alleged to have committed. Given these circumstances, the Judicial Branch must issue a complementary advisory decision addressing this new fact and other questions relating to the implications of the execution of the Constitutional Court’s judgment in relation to offenses that may or may not entail the risk that citizen Wong Ho Wing will face the death penalty, which is the new fact at issue. The Case File on Passive Extradition No. 03-2009 involving Chinese citizen Wong Ho Wing is 86 hereby remitted for that purpose (…) . 136. On February 20, 2012, the Lima Superior Court’s Criminal Chamber for Cases involving Jailed Prisoners, with other members of the judiciary serving on its bench to substitute for vacationing judges, delivered a decision in which it made reference to the appeal from the Ministry of Justice’s Prosecutor for Judicial Affairs, challenging the November 30, 2011 decision that dismissed the request seeking clarification of the implications of the Constitutional Court’s decision. This judicial authority based its decision on the following: The court observes that the complainant seeks to rely on new facts that have come to light, so that the extraditurus may be extradited without risk to his life; it must be noted here that under the provisions of Article 4 of the Organic Law on the Judicial Branch, the content of a judgment cannot be changed except in the case of the exceptions allowed by law, such as verdicts delivered in family law (…) that provision can only be interpreted literally, which is the only possible interpretation for judgments that have become final and have been executed. Therefore, no “new fact” that is alleged to have come to light can be reviewed, especially when we consider that the law does not allow final judgments to be revisited. On that procedural basis alone, the request from the Prosecutor’s Office is out of order and therefore must be denied. We also have to consider the principle that holds that “what is directly prohibited by law cannot be accomplished by indirect means,” which would mean that interpretation cannot be used to either “narrow” or “amplify” the implications of a judgment that has become res judicata. The conclusion, then, is that the request from the Prosecutor’s Office is incompatible. Therefore, in application of Article four of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, the superior court judges serving on this collegiate bench 85 Annex 63. Communiqué No.1119-2011-JUS/DNJ of November 30, 2011. Attachment to the brief received from the petitioner on February 1, 2012. 86 Annex 64. Communiqué No. 116-2012-JUS-DM, of February 9, 2012. Attachment to the communication received from the petitioner on March 13, 2012.