extradition,” following the issue of the complementary advisory decision by the Supreme Court of the Republic. 20 On March 14, 2012, the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared, inter alia, “without purpose […] the issue of [a] new advisory decision or ‘complementary advisory decision’ as sought by the Ministry of Justice, and that the Executive Branch should adopt the appropriate legal decision.” 21 The Court emphasizes that, despite the issue of this decision and the previous observations of the State, the Executive Branch has abstained from taking a final decision on the extradition of Wong Ho Wing and, on the contrary, has filed at least three additional appeals in order to clarify the Constitutional Court’s judgment ordering that he should not be extradited; the last of these being the one decided by the Constitutional Court on March 12, 2013 (supra considering paragraph 9). According to the information provided to the Court, the Executive Branch has still not taken a final decision on the extradition of Wong Ho Wing, even though two months have passed since the adoption of this last decision by the Constitutional Court. 20. Additionally, the Court notes that the State has abstained from indicating clearly that it will not extradite Wong Ho Wing and, to the contrary, throughout its brief, Peru has stressed that the Constitutional Court’s judgment of March 12, 2013, “ratifies that the determinant factor of its 2011 judgment was to evaluate whether, in light of the circumstances of the case and the evidence in the case file, the right to life of Wong Ho Wing was threatened,” because “in the file of the habeas corpus processed before the Judiciary and the Constitutional Court, there were insufficient diplomatic guarantees to prove that Wong Ho Wing would not be liable to the death penalty,” because the said “documentation was provided to the [Constitutional] Court after its judgment [and] was not accepted by the latter because it was time-barred.” The Court has no information on any new judicial appeals that the State may have filed to achieve the extradition of Wong Ho Wing. However, taking into account the background to these measures (where the State has already on one occasion affirmed the binding nature of the decision of the Constitutional Court and then questioned its obligatory nature by numerous judicial remedies) and that, according to the State itself, it is the Executive Branch that takes the final decision in an extradition procedure 22 (which has not occurred in this case), the Court finds that a situation of uncertainty continues with regard to the possibility of extraditing Wong Ho Wing that justifies maintaining these provisional measures. 21. Despite the foregoing, the Court reiterates that, in its Order of June 26, 2012, it indicated that “it [was] advisable that the Inter-American Commission decide case No. 12,794 lodged before it promptly.” Nevertheless, the Court observes that, during the processing of this case before the Commission, the decision on the merits of the case has already been postponed on at least two occasions. In this regard, it takes note of the State’s observation that it is not the first time that this Court has extended the validity of these provisional measures so that the Commission may issue the respective report on merits. Given that the request for provisional measures is based on the requirement of urgency, the Court finds that greater celerity should be accorded to the Inter-American Commission’s proceeding to decide on the merits of the case lodged before it in this matter. Indeed, it would clearly be inconsistent if the urgency argued to request provisional measures did not 20 This assertion was made by the State in a brief sent to the Inter-American Commission in the context of the proceedings before that organ. The Commission forwarded it as an annex to its request for provisional measures. 21 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of April 27, 2012, fifth considering paragraph. 22 Cf. Brief of the State of March 8, 2010, where Peru explained that “[t]he final decision in an extradition procedure is merely political in nature and corresponds to the Executive Branch” (file of provisional measures, folio 147); Peruvian Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 514. Authorities who intervene (file of provisional measures, folio 141), and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, thirteenth considering paragraph. 8