4 10. The arguments of the Commission to justify its request for provisional measures, indicating, among other matters that: (a) The information in the case file allows it to be inferred that, if the offense of smuggling or customs tax evasion is of a serious nature, the applicable punishment is life imprisonment or the death penalty. Consequently, this request seeks to preserve the purpose of the petition submitted to the Commission and to ensure the effectiveness of the final decision it issues under the inter-American proceedings. Although the State has mentioned the existence of supposed guarantees that the death penalty will not be imposed, this could be a relevant issue in an eventual decision on merits that this request seeks to safeguard. Furthermore, although the possible beneficiary has not yet been sentenced to death, his extradition would subject him to the jurisdiction of a State that is outside the jurisdiction of the organs of the inter-American system; (b) Furthermore, there is prima facie evidence that could reveal irregularities and violations of due process in the extradition process, such as the fact that Mr. Wing’s representative did not have access to the complete case file and the consequent difficulties for the exercise of his defense and for the presentation of relevant information that could be taken into account in the decision. Similarly, also in keeping with the standard of prima facie evaluation, the Commission mentioned that the representative had submitted arguments that could indicate that the Chinese authorities have not maintained a consistent position concerning the likelihood of the death penalty being imposed on the possible beneficiary. At first, these authorities stated that, owing to the nature of the offenses supposedly committed by Mr. Wing, there was no possibility that he would be sentenced to the death penalty or life imprisonment. However, the second note issued by the Chinese Embassy, which referred to the decision of the People’s Supreme Court, indicated that “[the said court] will not hand down a death sentence […], even if his crime would merit the death penalty by law”; (c) The Chinese authorities did not attach to the initial extradition request the part of the criminal law that would allow the death penalty to be imposed. Also, the Commission emphasized the representative’s arguments about the summary nature of the criminal proceedings that lead to the application of the death penalty in China, as well as the different declarations by international organizations, including the Committee against Torture, concerning the 1988 Law on the Preservation of State Secrets in the People’s Republic of China, which prevents access to information on criminal justice and the application of the death penalty. Hence, the Commission affirmed that there is little possibility that the Peruvian State could exercise any type of control or require information with regard to what, in China, is considered a “State secret”; (d) Despite the existence of precautionary measures in this matter, the extradition has been declared admissible, inter alia, based on the consideration that, to date, there has been no official decision that binds the Peruvian State and that prevents it from complying with the extradition treaty concluded with China. This shows that, despite the precautionary measures, the State continues to advance the extradition process, and the only aspect pending is the Government’s decision which, according to the available information, could be issued at any time and give rise to Mr. Wing’s immediate extradition. Consequently, the Commission indicated that an order for provisional measures was the most appropriate way to avoid this situation and to