i) Arguments of the Inter-American Commission and of the State 5. Following its initial submission, the Inter-American Commission added that the Ministry of Justice had continued insisting on its request for a “complementary advisory decision” by the Supreme Court of Justice, a procedure that would be conducted in parallel to the decisions made in the context of monitoring compliance with the Constitutional Court’s judgments. The Commission reiterated its concern because of the change in Peru’s position before the organs of the inter-American system and, in this regard, recalled that, when the State asked the Court to lift the provisional measures, it did so based on the undertaking to comply with the Constitutional Court’s rulings that ordered that Wong Ho Wing should not be extradited. This occurred months after the authorities were aware of the amendment of the Chinese Penal Code, which they now argue as a “new fact.” The State is now arguing that there is no risk of the application of the death penalty, openly disregarding the rulings of the Constitutional Court. According to the Commission, this position of the Ministry of Justice “is a reinterpretation” of the Constitutional Court’s rulings that “directly and specifically ordered that Wong Ho Wing should not be extradited.” The Commission argued that “[i]n the absence of the undertaking to abide by the rulings of the Constitutional Court, the grounds for lifting the provisional measures no longer existed, and [the analysis of gravity, urgency and irreparability made in the Order of May 28, 2010,] was fully applicable to the actual circumstances of the extradition procedure.” 6. The Commission also stressed “that its opinion in favor of lifting the measures was based exclusively on the Peruvian State’s explicit declaration that it would comply with the rulings of the Constitutional Court, and not on the supposed amendment.” In addition, the Commission underscored that the State had requested that the petition be archived “arguing that, in compliance with the rulings of the Constitutional Court, the Executive was about to issue the final decision, denying the extradition.” 7. Furthermore, the Commission observed that the State was insisting on the guarantees offered by the requesting State, a matter that the Inter-American Court had decided in its first ruling concerning the provisional measures adopted previously in this matter, to the effect that it was not appropriate to analyze them during these proceedings, because they related to the merits of the matter. The Commission also considered that the information provided by the State about the amendment to the Chinese Penal Code (infra considering paragraph 12) “was insufficient to conclude categorically that there was no risk of the application of the death penalty.” In this regard, it explained that, since the State had requested guarantees and translations piecemeal, “it is not possible to understand clearly the offenses for which the extradition of Wong Ho Wing is being requested, their characteristics, and the punishments that could be imposed for each of them.” According to the Commission, the translation provided on “the supposed favorable retroactivity” of this amendment gives rise to concern, because “it contains serious grammatical errors that make it difficult to understand,” in addition to the fact that “it appears to regulate a situation other than that of the amendments”; apart from the fact that, in any case, the analysis of this point relates to the merits of the matter. 8. In addition, in its brief of April 16, 2012, the Commission advised that, on March 14, 2012, the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had rejected the request of the Ministry of Justice that it issue a “complementary advisory decision” (infra considering paragraph ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). The Commission indicated that this decision was relevant because: (a) it 4