12 56. In these communications, the State indicated that Mr. Wong Ho Wing was still in custody since the extradition process had not yet been concluded, as the Executive Branch had not yet issued the Supreme Resolution “denying Mr. Wing’s extradition to the People’s Republic of China, in compliance with the decision of the Peruvian Constitutional Court.” The State’s position since February 2012 57. Thereafter, following the Commission’s February 8, 2012 request for information triggered by the information supplied by the petitioner concerning a series of challenges and actions filed whose purpose was allegedly to prevent full observance of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, the State’s position, both in writing and in its comments during the public hearing held during the Commission’s 144th regular session, was as summarized below: 58. The State indicated that the Constitutional Court’s decision “is being scrupulously observed in the extradition process,” which continues to be conducted “in accordance with the law with a view to arriving at the proper decision.” 59. By a communication sent on February 21, 2012, the State advised that it was awaiting issuance of a new, complementary advisory decision by the judicial branch, specifically the Supreme Court, addressing a “new fact and other questions relating to the implications of the execution of the Constitutional Court’s judgment in relation to offenses that may or may not entail the risk of the death penalty, since the crime of smuggling of which Chinese citizen Wong Ho Wing is accused is not a capital offense.” The State pointed out that the “new fact” to which it is referring is the February 25, 2011 repeal of the death penalty in China for the crime of “customs tax evasion.” 60. The State added that the procedural rule governing the extradition process does not set deadlines for the duration of the process, although it stated that it had “every intention (…) to resolve the extradition process as expeditiously as possible.” 61. As for the legal grounds for continuing to hold Mr. Wong Ho Wing in custody, the State indicated that his arrest was due to the original provisional arrest warrant, which was properly justified and reasoned and in which consideration is given to the existing procedural danger, the personal circumstances of the person subject to extradition, the seriousness of the offenses of which he is accused, and other factors. It observed that because the extradition process has not yet been finalized, the corrective measures taken are still in place, although the petitioner may pursue whatever legal measures he deems appropriate to seek the release of Mr. Wong Ho Wing, such as provisional release, substituting his provisional arrest with a supervised release arrangement, and others. 62. The State presented information regarding an allegedly similar situation to the instant case in which a Chinese citizen was extradited from Canada and sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of smuggling. In this regard, the State argued that China "has guaranteed the right to life and personal integrity of repatriated Chinese citizens for similar crimes to those charged to Mr. Wong Ho Wing".