11 51. The State indicated that in view of the guarantees provided by the Chinese government and Judicial Branch, the Permanent Criminal Chamber declared the requirements provided in constitutional law, procedural law, and in the bilateral extradition treaty between China and Peru to have been met. It transcribed excerpts of the advisory decision of January 27, 2010, which state the following: The decision contained in the duly translated ruling of December 8, 2009 issued by the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic should also be regarded as relevant, and is attached to this request […]. Such a pledge reveals an unavoidable commitment on the part of the judicial authorities of the People’s Republic of China NOT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY on the extraditable individual should he be found criminally responsible” (bold face and upper case correspond to the original version). The Peruvian State makes the requested surrender of the Chinese citizen contingent upon the commitment made by the competent authorities of the People’s Republic of China not to impose the death penalty on him, should he be convicted; in addition, the Peruvian State must be informed of the verdict in the decision in respect of the extraditurus when it is handed down […]. 52. The State submitted a list of 40 Supreme Court rulings adopted in Peru over the last five years regarding extradition requests from various countries. It indicated that in all these cases the norms of the relevant conventions, the Constitution and the law established for the purpose or extradition were respected. With respect to the alleged violations of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, the State asserted that Mr. Wong Ho Wing was freely able to invoke all the remedies provided by domestic law, which were decided by competent judges within the context of due process. 53. The State asserted that the passive extradition process with respect to the alleged victim is suspended “because on May 28, 2010 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights decided to grant provisional measures in favor of the Chinese citizen Wong Ho Wing, pursuant to which the Peruvian State must refrain from extraditing him to the People’s Republic of China until December 17, 2010.” The State’s position between August 2011 and February 2012 54. On August 4, 2012 the Peruvian State presented a brief in this case, in which it reported on a decision delivered by the Constitutional Court on May 24, 2011, and the Constitutional Court’s June 9, 2011 clarification of that ruling. The State explained that with this ruling, the petition of habeas corpus that Mr. Wong Ho Wing had filed was definitively decided. It stated that in this ruling, the Constitutional Court ordered the Peruvian State, as represented by the Executive Branch, to refrain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China. It added that in its ruling, the Constitutional Court had urged the Peruvian State, as represented by the Executive Branch, to act in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(1) of the Extradition Treaty between Peru and the People’s Republic of China. 55. The State argued that based on this information, “Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s case is not properly before the Commission, as the State has now been prevented from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China; the petitioner has obtained protection from the threatened violations of his fundamental rights that he was alleging.” The State made reference to the subsidiarity principle of the inter-American human rights system and took the occasion to expressly request that the record of the case be closed.