2 State’s report and answers respectively. Furthermore, he asked the Court to keep the provisional measures in force. 4. The brief of May 10, 2011, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) transmitted observations on the report and the documentation forwarded by the State and asked the Court to “extend the time limit established in the order [of the Court] of March 4, 2011, in order to complete its evaluation of the merits of the case in compliance with the regulatory procedural time frames.” 5. The briefs of May 27, 30 and 31, 2011, and their attachments, in which the State forwarded Report No. 271-2011-JUS/PPES and, with the last brief, it attached an unofficial translation of the “Report on the protection granted by Chinese law to the rights of defendants and suspects.” CONSIDERING THAT: 6. Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) on July 28, 1978, and, in accordance with its Article 62, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 7. Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that “in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” This provision is, in turn, regulated by Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.1 A. Arguments of the parties 8. The State considered that, in the extradition procedure against Wong Ho Wing, the principle of the similarity of norms has been observed, because the offenses that he is accused of in the People’s Republic of China “are consistent with their equivalents in Peruvian law where they are codified as offenses of evasion of customs duties and […] general active bribery.” Furthermore, it affirmed that “there is no possibility of the [death penalty] being imposed on Wong Ho Wing, if the Peruvian State declares that extradition is in order and if, following the criminal proceedings against him in China, his criminal responsibility is determined,” owing to a recent reform of the law that has annulled the death penalty for the offense of smuggling commodities, and to the inexistence of this punishment for the offense of bribery, based on which the Supreme Court of Peru had also declared the extradition admissible. In addition, the State provided a copy of a communication from the Chinese Ambassador to Peru in which the latter advised that “on February 25, [2011,] the People’s National Assembly of the People’s Republic of China approved the annulment of the death penalty for the offense of commodity smuggling,” and also the translation into Spanish certified by the Chinese Consul in Peru “of the articles corresponding to the Eighth Amendment to the Penal Code of the People’s Republic of China,” which lists “the articles of the Chinese Penal Code applicable to the passive extradition procedure followed against Wong Ho Wing […] expressly indicating the annulment of the death penalty.” 1 Rules of Procedure approved by the Court during its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009.