did not have sufficient information on the entry into force of this amendment, whether it would be applicable to this case, and the specific eventual effects in relation to Wong Ho Wing. 11 30. The Court takes note of the documentation provided by Peru as a result of this request and observes that it would allow several of the obstacles previously indicated to be overcome, because it includes an official translation of the Eighth Amendment of the Chinese Penal Code and of article 12 of the code. The Court observes that this amendment did in fact repeal the death penalty for the offense of smuggling goods and objects, which is one of the offenses for which the proposed beneficiary’s extradition is requested. However, the Court also notes that the official translation of article 12 forwarded by the State does not allow the Court to be certain whether this amendment would be applicable to the case of Wong Ho Wing. 31. In addition, the Court considers that the exact determination and clarification of whether the said amendment to the Penal Code will be applicable in the eventual proceedings against Wong Ho Wing in the requesting State calls for an examination of the merits of the facts, the evidence provided, and the legal situation reported, which exceeds the arguments of the State and the information in the body of evidence. Hence, it constitutes an analysis that is inappropriate in the proceedings on provisional measures. This analysis is one of the issues that must be considered during the examination of the dispute pending before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 32. The Court notes that the State has forwarded an official translation of a “Clarification concerning the cases to which the Eighth Amendment to the Penal Code is applicable,” issued by the Supreme Court of the Peoples’ Republic of China, which indicates that, according to the said article 12, “the Eighth Amendment will be applied in the case [of Wong Ho Wing]” and reiterated “the commitment made by the Supreme Court of the Peoples’ Republic of China not to apply the death penalty [to the proposed beneficiary]. The Court assesses positively the existence of the guarantees presented and does not doubt the good faith of Peru and of the Peoples’ Republic of China with regard to the said documents. Nevertheless, the Court recalls that, as of its first Order in this matter, it had ruled on the alleged guarantees issued by the People’s Republic of China, and then reiterated that: The analysis of the guarantees received by Peru is a question of merits related to compliance with the State’s international obligation derived from Articles 4 and 1(1) of the Convention not to subject anyone to the risk of the application of the death penalty, by way of extradition. In addition, it is related to the formalities of due process ensured by domestic law in the extradition procedure. Therefore, the assessment of the pertinence and aptness of the said guarantees, as well as of the alleged violations of the rights recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention corresponds to the examination of the merits of the case that the Inter-American Commission must eventually make in the petition before it, and not to this proceeding on provisional measures. 12 Penal Code that had been approved on February 25, 2011, by the Peoples’ National Assembly of that country, but rather a copy in Chinese and in Spanish, of the articles of the said Penal Code with the wording prior to the amendment, and with the parts that had supposedly been repealed underlined in the text with the indication “the content underlined has been repealed by the new amendment to the Chinese Penal Code” in brackets. Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., Fourteenth considering paragraph. 11 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., Fourteenth considering paragraph. 12 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no 11