5 compliance with the obligations of respect and guarantee established therein. Furthermore, notwithstanding the conclusion of these provisional measures, the Inter-American Court recalls that the States have the constant and permanent obligation to comply with their general obligations under Article 1(1) of the Convention to respect the rights and freedoms recognized 6 therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 19. On March 2, 2012, the Commission asked the Inter-American Court to again grant provisional measures for Mr. Wong Ho Wing. This request was based on information received concerning the reactivation of the extradition process, the Constitutional Court’s decision notwithstanding. On April 27, 2012, the Court issued an order in which it requested information from the Peruvian State.7 20. On June 26, 2012, the Inter-American Court issued an order again granting provisional measures, as follows: “To require the State, as decided in this Order, to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing, until December 14, 2012, to allow the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to examine and rule on case No. 12,794.”8 21. On February 13, 2013 the Court issued a Resolution extending the provisional measures. On April 1, 2013 the Commission requested the Court to extend the provisional measures in favor of Mr. Wong Ho Wing until July 31, 2013. This request was based on the fact that the Commission decided to defer the deliberation of the merits report for its 148 session, to be held between 8 and July 19, 2013, in order to have the arguments of the parties concerning the resolution issued by the Constitutional Court on March 12, 2013. 22. On May 22, 2013 the Court issued a Resolution in the following terms: "Request the State (...) to refrain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing until August 30, 2013, in order to allow the Commission (...) to examine and decide on case No. 12.794 ". 23. As of the date of approval of this report, the provisional measures ordered by the Court are still in effect. 6 http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/wong_se_06_ing.pdf 7 http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/wong_se_07_ing.pdf. Information was requested on the following points: a) The legal effects of the decision of March 14, 2012, of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in relation to the extradition procedure and whether, following this decision, according to domestic law, the only requirement pending is the decision of the Executive; b) The legal effects of said decision in relation to the rulings of the Constitutional Court ordering that Wong Ho Wing should not be extradited, and c) Whether, under domestic law, the ruling of the Constitutional Court and its clarification ordering that Wong Ho Wing must not be extradited are legally binding for the Executive and the other State authorities. 8 http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/wong_se_08_ing.pdf.