according to which the Constitutional Court had prohibited any possibility of extradition. 20. Lastly, the State forwarded information obtained from newspaper articles on the extradition of a Chinese citizen from Canada, “who was required […] for the same offenses as Wong Ho Wing,” indicating that the offenses were “smuggling and bribery.” Peru asked the Court to assess positively “that the punishment of the death penalty for the said person, also accused of one of the offenses attributed to [Wong Ho Wing], has not been considered. Based on the foregoing, it asked that the request of the InterAmerican Commission be declared inadmissible. ii) Considerations of the Court 21. The Court recalls that these provisional measures were granted on May 28, 2010, at the request of the Inter-American Commission in the context of petition P366-09, 5 in view of the prima facie threat of a risk inherent in the extradition of a person, which alleged possible flaws in due process, because the said extradition could lead to the application of the death penalty in a State outside the inter-American system. At that time, the extradition procedure was in its final stage, after the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru had declared that the extradition of Wong Ho Wing was admissible, and the only pending element was the decision of the Executive, which could have occurred at any moment. The adoption of the measures was ordered and then maintained by this Court only in order “to allow [the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights] to examine and rule on petition P-366-09 filed before that organ.” 6 22. Subsequently, on October 10, 2011, the Inter-American Court decided to lift the measures it had ordered considering that the Constitutional Court of Peru had “ordered the Peruvian State, represented by the Executive, to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing to the Peoples’ Republic of China” and that it should proceed to try him in Peru. The Inter-American Court took into consideration the State’s request to lift the measures and the agreement of the Inter-American Commission since the said rulings of the Constitutional Court “would eliminate juridically the possibility of the State of Peru deciding to extradite Wong Ho Wing to the Peoples’ Republic of China.” 7 On that occasion, the State had indicated that it requested the lifting of the measures because the Constitutional Court’s ruling could not be appealed and, consequently, there was “no risk of the application of the death penalty to the Chinese citizen Wong Ho Wing, since the said person will not extradited by the Peruvian State to the Peoples’ Republic 5 The petition was declared admissible on November 1, 2010, by Report No. 151/10 and with regard to Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of this treaty. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the acting President of the Court of March 24, 2010 fourth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, fifth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of November 26, 2010, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of March 4, 2011, eighth and ninth considering paragraphs; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, eleventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of October 10, 2011, fifth considering paragraph 6 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth considering paragraphs and first operative paragraph. 7 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of October 10, 2011, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., sixth, eighth and tenth considering paragraphs. 8