Mr. Wong Ho Wing, based on alleged “new facts.” 3 Both in May 2010 and in June 2012, the provisional measures were ordered to allow the Inter-American Commission to assess this case and render a decision. 4 On July 18, 2013, the Commission adopted the Report on the Merits No. 78/13 on this case and issued recommendations for the State. 5 On October 30, 2013, the Commission submitted this case before the Court, indicating that it involved “a sequence of violations against the rights of Mr. Wong Ho Wing, a national of the People’s republic of China, since his detention on October 27, 2008, and throughout the extradition process that is still valid today.” 6 The State reported to the Court that “it disagrees with the arguments carried out by the Inter-American Commission” in its Report on the Merits and that “the Extradition process is not over […] since the process is in its final stages at the moment.” 7 6. Taking this information into account, this Court once again extended the validity of these measures on January 29, 2014, “until this Court resolves this case in a definitive manner in the framework of its contentious jurisdiction.” Upon adopting this decision, the Court took into account that the case had been filed before its jurisdiction, uncertainty remained about the possibility of Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition despite the decision by the Constitutional Court, the conclusions made by the Commission in its Report on the Merits, the absence of a final decision by the Executive Branch, the fact that the extradition process is in the final stages, and the request made by the Commission to deny the extradition of the alleged victim, in light of the alleged violations to Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s rights committed in the framework of the extradition process. Moreover, the Court noted that it seeks to avoid frustration in the fulfillment of a possible determination by the Court, particularly considering that the beneficiary would be extraditing to a State out of the protective grasp of the Inter-American System and that he would be processed for a crime that could entail the death penalty. 8 B. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 7. After this decision, the representative of Mr. Wong Ho Wing made a request to expand these measures in the brief of pleadings and motions to order “the immediate liberation of Mr. Wong Ho Wing.” According to the representative in this case “there appears to be good law” to the extent that Mr. Wong Ho Wing “has benefited from the final 3 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, Having seen clause 4 and Considering clause 38, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013, Considering clause 4. 4 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, operative paragraph 1, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, operative paragraph 1. 5 Specifically, the Commission issued four recommendations to the State, and pursuant to the procedures established in Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention, it forwarded the Report on the Merits and requested information on the monitoring of compliance of said recommendations in a period of two months. Cf. Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, Considering clause 5. 6 Moreover, the Commission concluded that “in the different stages of the extradition process the domestic authorities have incurred in a series of omissions and irregularities in the processing of the case, in the reception and assessment of the supposed guarantees granted by the Republic of China.” Pursuant to the Commission, “such omissions and irregularities constitute, in addition to violations in various extremes of due process, noncompliance with the obligation to guarantee the right to life and personal integrity of Mr. Wong Ho Wing.” Brief submitting the case by the Commission (case file on the merits, Tome I, folio 2). 7 Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Considering clause 6. Perú. Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, 8 Cf. Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, Considering clause 12. 3