complying scrupulously with the decision of the Constitutional Court. The Commission underscored the change in the State’s position and that, furthermore, the Executive, alleging the existence of supposed “new facts,” had asked the Supreme Court for a complementary advisory decision in the extradition procedure. It added that, in its presentations to the Commission, the State had recognized the possibility that the final decision in the extradition procedure could be favorable to the application made by the requesting State. Furthermore, regarding the State’s arguments, the Commission indicated that the “new fact” that had been alleged, namely the amendment of the Chinese Criminal Code eliminating the death penalty for one of the crimes for which Wong Ho Wing was required, occurred more than a year ago and the State already knew about it when the Constitutional Court issued its decisions. The Inter-American Court was informed of this fact in February 2011, and the Commission had also ruled in this regard. 5. The note of March 2, 2012, in which the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), on the instructions of the Court in plenary, asked the State to present, by March 22, 2012, at the latest, observations on the Inter-American Commission’s request. 6. The brief of March 9, 2012, and its attachments, in which the Inter-American Commission forwarded additional information and indicated that the Ministry of Justice had continued to insist on the request for a “complementary advisory decision” from the Supreme Court of Justice, which had convened a hearing to be held on March 14, 2012. The Commission advised that this proceeding would be held in parallel to the rulings in the context of monitoring compliance with the judgments of the Constitutional Court, “establishing the immutability of the said rulings as regards the prohibition of extradition.” 7. The note of March 12, 2012, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the acting President, forwarded the said additional information to the State and asked it to comment on the information provided by the Commission in the brief to be presented to the Court by the State on March 22, 2012. 8. The brief of March 22, 2012, and its attachments, in which the State forwarded information and its observations on the request for provisional measures presented by the Commission. In summary, Peru indicated that the situation of extreme gravity is not present in this matter owing to the elimination of the death penalty for the crime of smuggling ordinary goods, a derogation that would be applicable to Wong Ho Wing should he be extradited, so that his life was in no real or imminent danger. Furthermore, the requirement of urgency is not met either, because there is no imminent threat of irreparable harm, and also the requesting State has given satisfactory and repeated guarantees that the death penalty will not be applied. In view of these guarantees and the amendment of the Criminal Code, there is no probability that the death penalty will be applied. The Peruvian State indicated that the Court must assess the information it had presented demonstrating that the requirements for the adoption of the requested measures have not been met. In its current request, the Commission has not proved the concurrence of the necessary requirements for the adoption of the provisional measures. 9. The note of March 26, 2012, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the acting President, forwarded the State’s report and granted the Commission until April 2, 2012, to forward observations on this report. 2