diplomatic guarantees given by the People’s Republic of China, as well as the legal effects of the supposed annulment of the death penalty for [the offense of smuggling], are aspects that correspond to the merits of the matter.” B. Considerations of the Court 14. First, the Court notes that the guarantees attached by the Peruvian State are, in essence, the same as those already examined by the Court in its Order of June 26, 2012. 13 On that occasion, the Court considered that the official translation of article 12 of the Chinese Criminal Code provided by the State did not allow it to understand clearly the applicability of the principle of retroactivity of the most favorable criminal law in relation to the amendment that annulled the death penalty for the offense of smuggling merchandise and other objects, which constitutes one of the offenses for which the extradition of Wong Ho Wing was requested. 14 The Court notes that, at the present time, the State has sent the Eighth Segment of the Criminal Code which clarifies the meaning of a phrase of article 12 of the Criminal Code; however, the applicability to the case of Wong Ho Wing of the principle of retroactivity of the most favorable criminal law in relation to the said amendment continues to be ambiguous. 15. Nevertheless, the Court recalls that it has already established that the exact determination and explanation of whether the said penal reform would be applicable in the eventual trial of Wong Ho Wing conducted in the requesting State constitutes an analysis that falls outside the procedure of provisional measures, insofar as it requires an examination of the merits of the facts, the evidence provided, and the reported legal situation, which goes beyond what the State has alleged and the information in the body of evidence. This examination is one of the issues that must be analyzed during the examination of the dispute that is pending before the Commission. 15 16. Furthermore, the Court recalls that, even though, in its Order of June 26, 2012, it had taken note of the official translation of a “Clarification regarding the cases to which the Eighth Amendment of the Criminal Code is applicable” made by the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China, 16 and “assesse[d] positively the existence of the guarantees presented,” the Court “recall[ed] that, as of its first Order in this matter, it had ruled on the alleged guarantees issued by the People’s Republic of China,” indicating that: The analysis of the guarantees received by Peru is a matter of merits, which is related to compliance with the State’s international obligation derived from Article 4 and 1(1) of the Convention, not to subject a person to the risk of the application of the death penalty through extradition. It is also related to the formalities of due process that domestic law ensures in the extradition procedure. Therefore, the assessment of the pertinence and appropriateness of the said guarantees, as well as of the alleged violations of the rights recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, corresponds to the examination of the merits of the case that the 13 At the present time, the State merely added an official translation of some articles of the Chinese Criminal Code in force before the amendment that presumably annulled the death penalty for the offense of smuggling, and of the Eighth Segment of the Chinese Criminal Code where the general time frames for prescription are regulated. 14 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, thirtieth considering paragraph. 15 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, thirty-first considering paragraph. 16 This clarification indicates that, according to the said article 12, “the eighth amendment will be applied in the case [of Wong Ho Wing]” and reiterates “the commitment assumed by the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China not to apply the death penalty [to the beneficiary].” Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, thirty-second considering paragraph. 6