2 3. The brief of March 1, 2010, in which the State requested an extension of the time limit for presenting the additional information and the observations requested by the acting President in relation to the request for provisional measures. 4. The brief of March 3, 2010, in which the Inter-American Commission forwarded the observations requested by the acting President and advised that it did not have the decision he had requested (supra having seen paragraph 2). 5. The note of March 3, 2010, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the acting President, granted the extension requested by the State until March 8, 2010. Furthermore, it informed Peru that, on that date, it should also forward its observations on the Commission’s brief of March 3, 2010. 6. The brief of March 5, 2010, in which the Commission presented additional information regarding the request. 7. The brief of March 8, 2010, and its attachments received the following day, in which Peru forwarded the requested observations and documents (supra having seen paragraphs 2, 3 and 5). 8. The note of March 24, 2010, with which the Secretariat forwarded to the parties the briefs of the Inter-American Commission and the State of March 5 and 8, 2010, respectively, together with their corresponding attachments. 9. The alleged facts on which the request for provisional measures presented by the Commission are based, namely: (a) On January 20, 2009, the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru (hereinafter the “Supreme Court” or “CSJP”) declared admissible an extradition request made by China against Mr. Wing, a Chinese citizen, who had been detained since October 27, 2008. This request was based on the alleged perpetration of the offenses of smuggling, customs tax evasion and bribery, under the laws in force in China. As a result of this decision, on January 21, 2009, Mr. Wing sent the Commission a request for precautionary measures, alleging that, if they were considered aggravated, the offenses of smuggling and customs tax evasion for which China was trying to extradite him could be punished by life imprisonment or even the death penalty; (b) Mr. Wing’s representative alleged that the extradition process had not complied with the legal requirements and that there were irregularities with regard to the time limits, the extradition hearing, and the participation of the defense counsel and the Public Prosecutor’s office. He also mentioned aspects related to the incomplete or incorrect translations on which the CSJP decision was founded. Regarding the merits, he stated that, under Peru’s law on criminal procedure, the Supreme Court should declare the extradition irreceivable because the grounds for denying extradition include: (i) that the minimum requirements of due process of law have not been guaranteed, and (ii) that the death penalty could be applied, and that guarantees have not be given that it will not be imposed; (c) On January 27, 2009, the Commission asked the State for information on the reported situation. In its response of February 2, 2009, Peru indicated that Mr. Wing’s life was not in imminent danger, because the extradition process was still being processed and that, in the absence of guarantees that the death penalty would not be imposed, the State would abstain from granting the extradition. Then, on February 6,