2 4. The October 1, 2010, brief in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) rejected the State’s request and indicated that its opinions “on the procedural conduct of the beneficiary do nothing to change the legal basis of the request and the granting of the provisional measures.” 5. The communication from the Secretariat of the Court of October 19, 2010, which, following the instructions of the acting President, stated that the State’s request would be considered by the Inter-American Court during the 89th Ordinary Period of Sessions, to be held in the seat of the Court from November 22th to 26th, 2010. 6. The November 11, 2010, brief in which the Inter-American Commission informed the Court of the November 1, 2010, passage of Admissibility Report No. 151/10 on application 366-09. The Commission also provided information indicating that in keeping with Article 37 of the Rules of Procedure, on November 9, 2010, the Commission notified the parties about this report and granted the petitioners a period of three months to present additional observations on the merits. Once presented, these observations will be forwarded in order for the State to present its comments within a similar period of time. Finally, the Commission “repeat[ed] its arguments regarding extreme gravity and urgency, the need for preventing irreparable damage to the beneficiary, and the consequent need for these provisional measures to remain in force until the bodies of the inter-American system issue a final ruling on the case.” 7. The communication from the Secretariat of the Court dated October 12, 2010, which, following the instructions of the acting President, requested comments from Peru on the information provided by the Commission and stated that the Commission’s request would be considered by the Court during its 89th Regular Period of Sessions. 8. The November 18, 2010, brief in which Peru requested a hearing or working meeting with the Court prior to the adoption of a ruling on the Inter-American Commission’s request, as well as an extension of the deadline for presenting comments on the request. An extension of the deadline until November 22, 2010, was granted. 9. The brief of November 22, 2010, and its annexes in which Peru stated, inter alia, that: a) the Commission “is using the figure of [provisional measures] as a quick way of getting a ‘kind of solution’ to the legal conflicts under its consideration,” resulting in “a situation of abuse of a request for provisional measures, since they have been proposed without a time limit, without reservations, contradicting the provisions of the Court’s Order for Provisional Measures”; b) by virtue of the Commission’s failure to issue a report on the merits, the State argues that “one of the essential elements for moving forward and/or continuing the protective measures - that being the urgency of the situation - has disappeared as a result of the actions of the Commission itself”; c) the deadlines for processing the case before the Commission could result in “an excessive delay in the processing of the [...] case before the supranational instances, thus contradicting the allegation that the situation is urgent”, and d) in particular circumstances, Peruvian legislation and the Extradition Treaty between Peru and the People’s Republic of China, permits the country in which the extradition is requested to give the country requesting the extradition the option of an extraditurus trial before the lower court and under its laws, “with the intention of preventing impunity for the crime committed by the individual whose extradition is being requested.” Also, it asked the Court to request from Mr. Wong Ho Wing “a commitment to forfeit prior procedural