3 properly before the inter-American system. On August 8, 2011, the Commission forwarded this communication to the petitioner and asked him to present his observations within one month. 10. On September 8, 2011, the petitioners presented their observations, which were forwarded to the State on October 3, 2011, with the request that it present its observations within one month. On October 7, 2011, the petitioner filed additional information, which was forwarded to the State on November 1, 2011. On November 22, 2011, the State presented additional information. The petitioner presented additional information on November 25, 2011. On February 1, 2012, the petitioner submitted still more information, which was forwarded to the Peruvian State on February 8, 2012. In this communication the IACHR asked the Peruvian State to provide specific information2 based on the fact that the petitioner was asking the Commission to file another request with the Court seeking provisional measures (concerning the processing of the precautionary and provisional measures, see infra paragraphs 14 to 23). 11. On February 21, 2012, the Peruvian State presented its reply to this request for information; that reply was forwarded to the petitioner on February 22, 2012. On February 17, 2012, the petitioner submitted additional information, which was forwarded to the State on March 5, 2012. The petitioner presented additional information on February 27 and March 2, 5 and 14, 2012. On March 22, 2012, the additional information supplied by the petitioner on November 25, 2011, was sent to the State. On March 23, 2012, the additional information provided by the petitioner on March 2, 5 and 14, 2012, was forwarded to the State, which was asked to present its observations within one month. 12. On March 26, 2012, the Commission held a public hearing on the merits of the case. At that hearing the parties supplied updated information and made additional observations on the merits. On November 27, 2012 the petitioner submitted additional information. On December 5, 2012 the Commission transmitted the petitioner’s information to the State. On April 3, 2013 the petitioner submitted additional information. On April 15, 2013 the Commission transmitted the petitioner’s information to the State. 13. On April 27, 2013, the Peruvian State presented its observations. On May 1, 2013 the State submitted additional information. On May 20, 2013 the Commission transmitted the State’s information to the petitioner. On June 25, 2013 the State submitted additional information. On June 26, 2013 the Commission transmitted the State’s information to the petitioner. B. Processing of precautionary and provisional measures 14. On January 21, 2009, the IACHR received a request seeking precautionary measures for Mr. Wong Ho Wing. Following a series of procedures and pursuant to Article 25 of its Rules of Procedure, on March 31, 2009 the IACHR granted precautionary measures for Mr. Wong Ho Wing and asked the Peruvian State to refrain from extraditing him until a decision had been issued on the individual petition filed on March 27, 2009, under Article 44 of the Convention. On a number of 2 The questions which the IACHR put to the State in this communication were as follows: “1. How has the Constitutional Court’s ruling of May 24, 2011, ordering the Executive Branch to refrain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing been reflected in the extradition proceedings and in his procedural status?; 2. If a final decision on the extradition request has not yet been taken, what is the procedure followed to adopt that decision and how long does it take?; and 3. What is the law that gives the State the authority to continue to hold Mr. Wong Ho Wing in its custody?”