2 Commission.” Since then, following information concerning a series of challenges that the State authorities had filed to have the Constitutional Court’s ruling overturned, the State has been arguing that because an amendment was introduced into Chinese law, other mechanisms had to be explored so that the sense of the Constitutional Court’s ruling would reflect the amendment introduced into Chinese law. Throughout the processing of this case with the Commission, the State’s contention has been that there was no risk that Mr. Wong Ho Wing would face the death penalty in China. 5. After examining the positions of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the Peruvian State is responsible for violation of the rights to personal liberty, life, humane treatment, judicial guarantees and judicial protection, recognized in articles 7, 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Wong Ho Wing. Based on these findings, the Commission made the respective recommendations. II. PROCESSING WITH THE COMMISSION A. Processing of the petition 6. On March 27, 2009, the Commission received the original petition filed by Luis Lamas Puccio. The history of the petition -from the time it was presented to the decision on its admissibility- is recounted in detail in admissibility report No. 151/10, issued on November 1, 2010. In that report, the IACHR declared that the petition was admissible with respect to the possible violation of the rights recognized in articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, as they relate to the obligations established in Article 1(1) of that instrument. 7. The admissibility report was forwarded to the petitioner and to the State on November 9, 2010. The Commission availed itself of the opportunity to place itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement in the matter. It also requested that the petitioner present his observations on the merits within three months. The State presented additional information in communications received on November 3 and 10, December 2 and 15, 2010. The petitioner, for his part, filed another brief on November 4, 2011. 8. The petitioner filed his observations on the merits in a communication received on March 7, 2011. That information was forwarded to the State on March 10, 2011, which was given three months to present its observations. On March 16, 2011, the petitioner supplied additional information. On June 21, 2011, the Peruvian State requested an extension of the deadline for submitting its observations on the merits. On June 24, 2011, the Commission acceded to the State’s request, and so extended the State’s deadline until July 11, 2011. On July 12, 2011, the State requested another extension of the deadline for submitting its observations on the merits. On July 29, 2011, the Commission advised the State that under Article 37(2) of its Rules of Procedure, the requested extension could not be granted. In that same communication the IACHR informed the State that “it [would] continue to process the complaint, and hopes to be able to rely on the Peruvian Government’s timely participation”. 9. On August 4, 2011, the State presented a communication in which it asked the Commission to close the record on the petition claiming that, by virtue of a ruling from the Constitutional Court which had ordered the Executive Branch to refrain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China, the petition no longer had a purpose and was therefore not