4 10. The Commission’s arguments on which it based its request for provisional measures. Among other arguments, the Commission noted that: a) The information found in the case file allows one to infer that if the crime of smuggling or fraud is sufficiently serious, the applicable punishment is life imprisonment or the death penalty. Consequently, this request seeks the same goal as the application presented before the Commission and to ensure the effectiveness of the final ruling issued in the Inter-American proceeding. Although the State has mentioned the existence of supposed guarantees that the death penalty will not be applied, this could be a subject relevant for an eventual ruling on the merits that this request seeks to safeguard. Also, despite the possibility that the potential beneficiary has not yet been convicted and sentenced to death, his extradition would submit him to the jurisdiction of a State that is outside the authority of the bodies of the Inter-American system, and b) In its opinion, “while there is a debate over the possibility that Wong Ho Wing would be sentenced to death under the jurisdiction of a State in which the bodies of the Inter-American system would have no authority whatsoever, it is the responsibility of the bodies of this system to take a position that would allow for the preservation of his life and personal safety, as any other decision could result in irreparable damage.” Thus the Commission considers that the requirements of Article 63(2) of the American Convention for moving this request forward have been met. 11. The State’s comments on this request for provisional measures. Among other arguments, the State expressed that: a) There is no extremely grave and urgent situation in this case where irreparable damage must be avoided, as the extradition proceeding is still ongoing before the Peruvian authorities. In this respect, the Order issued by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court granting the extradition is advisory in nature, and it is up to the Government to make a decision on the extradition through a Supreme Order issued in accordance with the Council of Ministers once the Official Extradition and Sentence Transfer Commission - which is made up of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs - issues its final report. The process is therefore a political one, and an immediate execution of the extradition is not expected; b) Peruvian law establishes that in cases of crimes punished by the death penalty in the State making the request, the only way the extradition can proceed is if that State provides a guarantee that it will not apply that punishment. Thus any extradition request over the commission of a crime that would result in a death penalty, where the State making the request does not guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied, will be rejected. In this case, the People’s Supreme Court of China has, through an order of December 8, 2009, committed to not imposing the death penalty on Mr. Wong Ho Wing should he be extradited. Two other communications providing the same guarantee - one from the Consul and the other from the Ambassador - also exist. Therefore, in the opinion of the Peruvian State, this case includes adequate and multiple guarantees that the death penalty would not be applied to the potential beneficiary, and