3 2009, Mr. Wing informed the Commission that he had filed an application for habeas corpus against the Supreme Court’s decision of January 20, 2009. On the same date, Peru submitted additional information consisting in a letter of February 2, 2009, sent by a Chinese consular officer in Peru, in which the latter indicated that there was no possibility that life imprisonment or the death penalty would be imposed on Mr. Wing. In addition, the State asked the Commission to reject the precautionary measure as a result of the said application for habeas corpus and of the suspensive effect with which it was granted. On February 10, 2009, Mr. Wing stated, with regard to the communication from Peru, that the guarantee presented by China was not very credible, because a note from a consular officer did not bind the State and that, based on the seriousness of the accusations against him, the offense could indeed be punished with the death penalty; (d) On March 27, 2009, Mr. Wing lodged a petition with the Inter-American Commission. On March 31, 2009, this organ granted precautionary measures in favor of Mr. Wing, based on the information that, in some circumstances, the offense of smuggling or customs tax evasion for which the extradition was requested, could result in the death penalty. On the same date, the Commission began processing petition P-366-09 and, applying the regulatory provision that permits reducing the time frames in exceptional situations, requested the State to submit its response within one month. The petition related to the State’s alleged failure to comply with its international obligations, owing to the presumed irregularities in the processing of extradition in Peru, because the requirements of due process had not been complied with and neither had the guarantees that the death penalty would not be applied in case of extradition, as required by domestic law; (e) On May 1, 2009, the State informed the Commission that the judicial authority had declared that the application for habeas corpus was partly founded and that the ruling of the CSJP of January 20, 2009, was null and void; hence, the said court would have to issue a new ruling; (f) On January 27, 2010, the Supreme Court decided, inter alia, to declare that the request for extradition based on customs tax evasion and bribery was admissible, because the requirements of form and content had been fulfilled. In this regard, the Peruvian State conditioned the handing over of the requested Chinese citizen to the commitment by the competent Chinese authorities not to sentence him to death. The CSJP considered relevant the decision of the People’s Supreme Court of Chine dated December 8, 2009, affirming that, should Mr. Wing be extradited, this punishment would not be imposed on him, and it concluded that there was no real danger that the death penalty would be applied. Moreover, it indicated that, although the InterAmerican Commission had requested precautionary measures, the Inter-American Court had not issued an order for provisional measures. Consequently, the CSJP considered that “there is no order from a competent authority that obliges the State […] to abstain from complying with the terms of the extradition treaty concluded with the People’s Republic of China,” and (g) Mr. Wing advised that an application for preventive habeas corpus had been filed against the authorities of the Executive Branch who would make the final decision about his extradition process, so that they would abstain from taking a decision contrary to the rights of the possible beneficiary. This remedy was declared inadmissible and the decision was notified to the possible beneficiary on March 2, 2010.