The note added that “[i]n addition, the extradition proceedings with regard to Wong Ho Wing have not concluded because, pursuant to article 515 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the Peruvian Government that takes the final decision on the extradition by means of a Supreme Decision issued with the agreement of the Council of Ministers, following a report of the Official Commission on Extraditions and Prisoner Transfers.” In this regard, the note ends by indicating that: “[i]n a decision of February 12, 2009, the 56th Criminal Court of Lima ordered the temporary suspension of the extradition procedure against the Chinese citizen, Wong Ho Wing, until the habeas corpus proceeding had concluded.”36 Thus, the State cited three reasons to support its position on the inadmissibility of the petition; namely, the ongoing processing when the petition was lodged of an application for habeas corpus filed by the petitioner himself; the processing of the extradition procedure, also at that time, and, lastly, the suspension of the procedure by a court order. C. Those relating to the Admissibility Report The Admissibility Report of November 1, 2010, indicates that “the presumed victim first argued the failure to comply with the legal and constitutional requirements for admission of the extradition request throughout the advisory proceeding decided in the final instance by the Supreme Court of Justice on January 27, 2010”; [s]econd, he submitted two applications for habeas corpus against the members of the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber and of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the aforementioned Supreme Court, pointing to alleged defects in the advisory proceeding and an alleged inadequate evaluation of the guarantees provided by the Government of the People’s Republic of China concerning the non-application of the death penalty,” and added that “[i]n addition, the presumed victim filed a preventive application for habeas corpus against the President of the Republic and the Council of Ministers, which has been pending a final decision on constitutional injury from the Constitutional Court since July 14, 2010.” The Admissibility Report also adds that “[b]ased on the foregoing considerations, the [Commission] consider[ed] that the presumed victim [had] exhausted the available remedies under domestic law aimed at rectifying the alleged irregularities in the advisory proceeding in which the final decision was taken by the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on January 27, 2010.” Thus, the Commission concluded that, “[c]onsequently, the requirement established in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention has been met.” First, attention should be drawn to the fact that the Admissibility Report refers to facts and/or judicial actions that took place after the petition had been lodged and to the corresponding observations of the State as grounds for the decision to admit the petition. In other words, it follows its consistent practice of determining whether the domestic remedies had been exhausted prior to this report, and not whether they had been exhausted prior to the petition.37 36 See also paras. 18 and 22 of the Judgment. 37 Cf. para. 19 of the Judgment. 14