reveals that it was the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights that had asked the Supreme Court of Justice to issue a complementary advisory decision, as the Commission stated in its request, and which the State had contested; (b) the ruling establishes the mandatory and res judicata nature of the judgments of the Constitutional Court ordering the Executive to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing; (c) the Supreme Court of Justice’s position appears to contradict the position of the State before the Inter-American Court; the Executive’s position is in favor of the extradition, despite the rulings of the Constitutional Court that examined in detail the possible risk of the application of the death penalty, and (d) the new ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice implies compliance with the requirement of extreme urgency, since the only aspect that remains pending is the decision of the Executive, which is discretional, and the latter has indicated to the organs of the inter-American system that there is no risk that the death penalty will be applied, despite the concerns raised and the absence of a final ruling by the organs of the inter-American system. The Commission asked the Court to rule on the request for provisional measures as soon as possible, in order to avoid irreparable harm to Wong Ho Wing, as well as to ensure the practical effects of the decision that the Inter-American Commission will eventually adopt in this matter. 9. The Commission added that “the extradition procedure is at the top of the Executive’s agenda; that is, at the same stage at which the Inter-American Court – when granting the provisional measures in favor of Wong Ho Wing on May 28, 2010, considered that it was an imminent situation and that, accordingly, the requirement of urgency was met.” The Commission indicated that, in addition to the request for a complementary advisory decision, which was decided in March 2012, the Executive also requested a reinterpretation “before the judicial authorities with competence in the execution of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, a mechanism that […] has also been unsuccessful to date.” The State has not provided information “on the other procedural mechanisms that it was exploring to obtain a ruling that would allow the Executive to validate its position in the sense that there is no risk whatsoever of the application of the death penalty.” 10. The Commission reiterated that “the rulings of the Constitutional Court refer not only to the guarantees in this specific case, but also to a series of elements related to the context and the legal framework in China – for example, the application of the death penalty as a State secret,” the massive application of the death penalty, and the lack of access to information on the application of the death penalty in China. The Commission also indicated that all the aspects relating to the guarantees granted by China, their assessment, the context, the applicable legal framework, the supposed repeal of the death penalty, the rulings of the Constitutional Court and compliance with them, must be assessed by the Inter-American Commission in its decision on the merits of this matter.” It indicated that it was unable to rule in detail on these points, because “this would constitute a prejudgment and would exceed the purpose of this mechanism.” In addition, it recalled that “[i]f Wong Ho Wing is extradited, an eventual decision [on the merits of the matter] in favor of the arguments of the petitioner in this case would have no practical effects.” Lastly, the Commission reiterated that this matter has been processed “with the promptness required by the situation,” that it had brought to bear the pertinent regulatory mechanisms to expedite a final decision in the matter, which “is […] at the merits stage as case No. 12,794,” and advised that, on March 26, 2012, it had held a public hearing on the merits of the case. 11. Regarding the Commission’s request for provisional measures, Peru indicated that a situation of extreme gravity did not exist in the instant case, owing to the repeal 5