of the death penalty for the offense of smuggling ordinary goods, and that this repeal would apply to Wong Ho Wing if he was extradited, so that there was no real and imminent danger to his life. In addition, the requirement of urgency was not met, “because there was no imminent risk of irreparable harm,” owing to the said repeal, in addition to the “adequate and reiterated guarantees that the death penalty would not be applied” given by the requesting State. It asserted that, based on these guarantees and the amendment to the Chinese Penal Code, “there is no reasonable probability that the death penalty will be applied.” It indicated that the Court should assess the information presented by the State, as well as the guarantees that the death penalty would not be applied given by the requesting State, which reveal that the requirements to adopt the requested measures are not met. It indicated that, in its request, the Commission had not proved the concurrence of the requirements for the adoption of the provisional measures. 12. With its brief, the State presented, inter alia, an official translation of the Eighth Amendment to the Chinese Penal Code, as well as the official translation of article 12 of the said code and the official translation of a “Clarification” issued by the Supreme People’s Court of the Peoples’ Republic of China in which, in addition to recalling the undertaking it had made not to apply the death penalty, it indicated that the Eighth Amendment would be applicable to the case of Wong Ho Wing. In addition, Peru advised that there was a “‘new fact’ [which] consisted in the original document of the Eighth Amendment of the Chinese Penal Code modifying the first paragraph of article 153 of the Penal Code; this amendment was approved on February 25, 2011, and entered into force on May 1, 2011”; this document proved the repeal of the death penalty for the offense of smuggling ordinary goods, one of the offenses for which the extradition of Wong Ho Wing was requested. Peru indicated that the said information had been forwarded to the Supreme Court of Justice which had “communicated this situation to the Ministry of Justice, indicating the need to issue a complementary advisory decision on this ‘new fact’ and others relating to the implications of the execution of the judgment of the Peruvian Constitutional Court in relation to the offenses that involve the risk of the application of the death penalty” in the case of Wong Ho Wing. 13. In addition, the State indicated that the defense of Wong Ho Wing was “not addressed at defending the right to life, but to obtaining the release of this person subject to extradition,” and that the intention of the petitioner’s representative “is that his client evade the action of justice seeking impunity, using the inter-American system for the protection of human rights inappropriately.” 14. Peru also affirmed that the Commission had not identified the flaws in due process or how they were related to the risk to the right to life and that, moreover, any flaws that might have existed in the initial processing of the extradition procedure had been resolved in the domestic sphere. Likewise, the State indicated that the Commission had not identified the facts that allow it to affirm that, “in any case,” the extradition involved a risk to life for the person subject to extradition, despite the guarantees and the said repeal of the death penalty. Peru underscored that, in addition, the purpose of both the original petition, and the request for provisional measures was to protect the right to life of Wong Ho Wing and not to prevent his extradition. 15. Peru recalled that the Inter-American Court had not considered the information on the repeal of the death penalty previously owing to the “supposed absence of [evidentiary] requirements” so that the documents provided by Peru on this occasion, 6