A. Actual situation of these measures, and arguments of the Commission and the State 7. Bearing in mind the preventive aspect indicated in the Order of February 13, 2013, this Court found it pertinent and opportune to order the adoption of provisional measures in this matter until June 1, 2013, “in order to allow the Inter-American Commission to examine and rule on case No. 12,794,” considering that the case was at the merits stage before the Commission and, “in principle,” would be submitted to the consideration of this organ during its next regular session to be held from March 7 to 22 this year. 10 Furthermore, in its last Order, the Court took note of the information provided by the State, that it had filed a new judicial remedy, this time “an anti-constitutionality appeal with regard to the interpretation of the judgment that decided the habeas corpus in favor of Wong Ho Wing,” in order to obtain an interpretation from the Constitutional Court of its own decision concerning the possibility of extraditing the beneficiary to the People’s Republic of China. Based on the foregoing, the Court observed that the situation of uncertainty remained as regards the possibility of extraditing Wong Ho Wing that justified the granting of these provisional measures in June 2012. 11 8. However, in April 2013, the Commission advised that “[d]uring the session, [in which the deliberation on the merits of this case had been programmed, the said organ] was informed of a ruling issued by the Constitutional Court on March 12, 2013.” 9. In the said ruling of March 12, 2013, the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the anti-constitutionality appeal filed by the Public Attorney of the Ministry of Justice against the decision of a Criminal Chamber of the Lima Superior Court of Justice rejecting an appeal against the decision declaring inadmissible a request to clarify the implications of the Constitutional Court’s decision ordering that Wong Ho Wing should not be extradited. 12 The Constitutional Court’s declaration of inadmissibility was based on the fact that: The brief [of the Public Attorney of the Ministry of Justice,] did not constitute a procedural remedy, either to clarify the judgment or to incorporate its content, particularly when a request of this kind would be totally time-barred […]. To the contrary, it is noted that, on the pretext of “clarifying” an element of its judgment, the purpose sought is that the Constitutional Court “modify” its previous decision, so that it expresses something that, originally, it did not indicate, which also affects the guarantee of res judicata […]. Thus, pursuant to the content of both the judgment and of the clarification decision issued by the Constitutional Court, it should be indicated that neither of these rulings made an individual or separate analysis of the offenses of which the applicant is accused, not only because it was not appropriate for this to be elucidated by this Court, but also because the relevant issue was to determine whether or not the right to life of the beneficiary of the habeas corpus procedure was threatened if the extradition request was declared admissible. measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, sixth considering paragraph. 10 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, fourteenth considering paragraph and first operative paragraph. 11 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, fourteenth considering paragraph. 12 The Public Attorney of the Ministry of Justice argued before the Constitutional Court, inter alia, that “since the ruling of the Constitutional Court does not make a distinction between the offenses that result in the protection granted by the ruling, it is possible to agree to the extradition based on the offense for which there is no danger of the death penalty and, in that eventuality, the State’s actions would comply with the execution of the judgment of the Constitutional Court.” 4