Constitutional Court’s rulings. The Commission underlined the State’s changed position, and also that the Executive, arguing the existence of supposed “new facts,” had asked the Supreme Court for a complementary advisory decision in the extradition procedure. The Commission added that, in its presentations before the Commission, the State had acknowledged the possibility that the final decision in the extradition procedure could be favorable to the requesting State’s application. Furthermore, regarding the State’s arguments, the Commission indicated that the “new fact” that had been alleged – that is, the amendment of the Chinese Penal Code revoking the death penalty for one of the offenses for which Wong Ho Wing was wanted – dates from more than a year ago and that the State was aware of it at the time the Constitutional Court issued its rulings. It added that the Inter-American Court had been informed of this fact in February 2011, and the Commission has also provided observations concerning the effects of the amendment on the provisional measures in May 2011. 5. The notes of March 2, 12 and 26, 2012, in which the Secretariat of the InterAmerican Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), on the instructions of the Court in plenary and of its acting President, asked the State to present observations on the Commission’s request, and the Inter-American Commission to present observations on the corresponding report sent by Peru. Also, the note of April 18, 2012, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the acting President, requested Peru, by April 23, 2012, at the latest, to provide information on the legal effects of the ruling of March 14, 2012, of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, as regards: (a) the extradition procedure, in particular whether, following this ruling, the only pending requirement under domestic law would be the decision of the Executive; (b) the rulings of the Constitutional Court ordering that Wong Ho Wing should not be extradited, and (c) whether, pursuant to domestic law, the rulings of the Constitutional Court ordering that Wong Ho Wing should not be extradited were legally binding for the Executive and other State authorities. 6. The briefs of March 9, April 5 and 16, May 4 and June 11, 2012, and their respective attachments, in which the Inter-American Commission submitted, inter alia, additional information and also its observations on the information provided by the State concerning the request for provisional measures. 7. The briefs of March 22 and May 25, 2012, and their attachments, in which the State forwarded information and its observations on the request for provisional measures presented by the Commission, and its answer to a request for information made by the Court (infra having seen paragraph 8). 8. The Order of the Court of April 27, 2012, in which, owing to the failure of Peru to forward the information requested (supra having seen paragraph 5), it required the State to forward information on: a) The legal effects of the decision of March 14, 2012, of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in relation to the extradition procedure and whether, following this decision, according to domestic law, the only requirement pending is the decision of the Executive; b) The legal effects of the said decision in relation to the rulings of the Constitutional Court ordering that Wong Ho Wing should not be extradited, and c) Whether, under domestic law, the ruling of the Constitutional Court and its clarification ordering that Wong Ho Wing must not be extradited are legally binding for the Executive and the other State authorities. 2