penalty in a State outside the inter-American system. 3 The measures were lifted on October 10, 2011, after the Constitutional Court, on May 24, 2011, had ordered the Executive Branch to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing. Subsequently, the Commission again requested provisional measures, because “the State has changed its position and the Executive Branch, alleging the existence of supposed ‘new facts,’ has even asked the Supreme Court to issue a complementary advisory decision in the extradition procedure.” 4 On June 26, 2012, the Court once again granted these provisional measures, considering that “given the State’s uncertainty with regard to the possibility of extradition, […] the Court f[ound] that the considerations [contained in its Order of May 28, 2010,] with regard to the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage [were] applicable to the […] situation of the proposed beneficiary” at that time. 5 In both May 2010 and June 2012, the Court ordered the adoption of the provisional measures only so as “to allow the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to examine and rule on [petition P-366-09, which corresponds to] case No. 12,794.” 6 5. In the Order of May 22, 2013, the Court considered that the circumstances that justified the granting of these provisional measures in June 2012 remained in force. 7 Thus, the Court stressed that, even though, in March 2012, the Supreme Court of Justice had declared that it was not in order to issue a new complementary advisory decision, and that “the Executive Branch should adopt the appropriate legal decision,” the Executive Branch has abstained from taking a final decision on the extradition of Wong Ho Wing. This Court underscored that, to the contrary, in addition to the request for the complementary advisory decision, the State has filed at least three appeals in order to clarify the Constitutional Court’s ruling ordering that Wong Ho Wing should not be extradited. The last of these was decided by the Constitutional Court on March 12, 2013, following which the Executive once again failed to adopt a decision regarding the extradition. 8 The Court also noted that the State had abstained from indicating clearly that it would not extradite Wong Ho Wing; but rather had affirmed the binding nature of the decision of the Constitutional Court, while questioning its scope, alleging that the Constitutional Court did not have all the pertinent information when adopting its decision. Therefore the Court considered that, taking into account the background to these measures and that, according to the State itself, it is the Executive Branch that takes the final decision in an extradition procedure, the situation of uncertainty continued with regard to the possibility of extraditing Wong Ho Wing that justified maintaining these provisional measures. 9 3 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth considering paragraphs and first operative paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, fourth considering paragraph. 4 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, fourth having seen paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, fourth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, thirty-eighth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, fourth considering paragraph, 6 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, first operative paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, first operative paragraph. 7 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May22, 2013, twenty-second considering paragraph. 8 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of April 27, 2012, fifth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, nineteenth considering paragraph. 9 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 22, 3