include the analysis of the merits of the case, “in principle, at the next occasion on which it will be deliberating case”; namely, during its next regular session scheduled for March 7 to 22, 2013. Accordingly, it asked the Court to extend the validity of these measures “until April 1, 2013, in order to permit the deliberation and issue of the merits report.” 11. Regarding the actual status of the extradition procedure, the State advised that “the anti-constitutionality appeal in relation to the interpretation of the judgment that decided the habeas corpus in favor of Wong Ho Wing remains pending.” It explained that the extradition “has not yet been decided by the Executive, precisely because of the mandate of the Constitutional Court,” as well as because of these provisional measures. It indicated that the Executive “has expedited procedural mechanisms before the competent jurisdictional organs in order to determine whether the constitutional order means that, on no grounds, can Wong Ho Wing be extradited to the Republic of China.” It indicated that “this is an unclear aspect regarding which the Constitutional Court has not yet ruled and that can only be decided – in the final analysis – by [that] organ of constitutional control,” because “[n]o State entity, including the Executive, has competence at this time to rule on the matter.” In addition, the State indicated that, in this matter, “the three concurring requirements of] extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage are not met,” because, according to the decision in the “judgment of May 24, 2011, the Constitutional Court declared the application for habeas corpus presented in favor of Wong Ho Wing admissible, and ordered the State to abstain from extraditing him,” and this “is being complied with strictly, because Wong Ho Wing has not been extradited […] and there is no real indication that this is about to happen.” 12. In its observations on the information presented by the State, the InterAmerican Commission noted that “much of the content of the [State’s] brief relates to legal arguments on the admissibility or not of the provisional measures, [and these] were duly decided in the Order of June 26, 2012, [when] the plenary of the InterAmerican Court decided to reinstate the provisional measures.” With regard to the information provided by Peru on the current status of the extradition procedure, the Commission indicated that the State considers that the extradition procedure remains pending a final decision and that “a new appeal has been filed” before the Judiciary at the request of the Executive in order to determine the scope of the judgments of the Constitutional Court. The Commission therefore observed that “the situation remains the same as before.” In addition, it indicated that “all the aspects relating to the guarantees granted by China […] must be assessed by the Inter-American Commission in the decision on merits in this case.” 13. For its part, in its respective observations, the State indicated that “the response given by the Commission was manifestly insufficient.” It argued that the Commission “has not provided sufficient elements to prove a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that would justify maintaining the measures.” Regarding the extradition procedure, it indicated that “there is no risk of the application of the death penalty” to the beneficiary, because “he will not be extradited […] for any offense that entails the possibility of the beneficiary being sentenced to death.” It insisted that the order issued by the Constitutional Court “is non-appealable”; “it is in force and legally binding,” despite the fact that “doubts or disagreements may exist about how to comply with it.” In this regard, it reiterated that the anti-constitutionality appeal remained pending a decision in relation to the interpretation of the habeas corpus decided in favor of Wong Ho Wing. Regarding the actual status of the proceedings before the Commission, it indicated that “the Commission’s response […] leads to the 5