10. Owing to this decision, the Commission indicated that “[s]ince [the said] decision is particularly relevant for the analysis of the merits of the case, the Commission decided to postpone the deliberation of its decision on merits until the 148th session, to be held from July 8 to 19, 2013, in order to receive the arguments of the parties with regard to this decision.” Consequently, the Commission requested “the extension of these provisional measures until July 31, 2013.” 11. For its part, the State explained that the said decision “ratifies that the determinant factor in the 2011 judgment of the [Constitutional Court] was to evaluate whether, given the circumstances of the case and the evidence in the case file, the right to life of Wong Ho Wing was in danger.” Thus, it reiterated that “the decision of the Constitutional Court ordering that Wong Ho Wing should not be extradited was legally binding for the Executive Branch and other entities of the State, which provided sufficient grounds to lift the provisional measures.” It emphasized that the 2011 decision of the Constitutional Court “has been complied with strictly because Wong Ho Wing has not been extradited.” In this regard, the State indicated that it was not necessary to wait until July 31, 2013, and therefore asked that these provisional measures be lifted. In addition, Peru argued that “in this case, the three concurrent requirements of extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage are not met, [because] by its judgment of May 24, 2011, the Constitutional Court had declared that the application for habeas corpus filed in favor of Wong Ho Wing was admissible, and ordered the State to abstain from extraditing him.” Despite this, the State reiterated that “with the entry into force of the Eighth Amendment to the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China, the death penalty for the offense of smuggling […] has been annulled.” 12. The State also argued that “it is not the first time that the Court issues provisional measures while waiting for the Commission to issue its report on merits in the Wong Ho Wing case.” In this regard, it considered that, “in principle, it is probable that, even in the [Commission’s] next session, it does not take a decision on the merits […], so that the provisional measures designed to give it time to issue its decision has lost any real substantiation.” The State indicated that “[g]iven that, in this case, the said delay has been caused in part by the provisional measures granted by the Court, the State requests that they be lifted.” In addition, the State presented arguments on the Commission’s findings in the admissibility report of this case, and attached information on the guarantees offered by the People’s Republic of China, and on another extradition case: of a Chinese citizen in Canada. 13. Regarding the request to lift the measures, the Commission indicated that “the Peruvian State has not provided any information on the specific effects of the [supposed] binding nature [of the Constitutional Court’s decision of March 12, 2013,] on the extradition procedure and, specifically, on the final decision of the Executive Branch.” In this regard, it stressed that “the information available indicates that, to date, the Executive Branch has not taken a final decision that Wong Ho Wing should not be extradited.” In addition, it recalled that “the binding nature of the decisions of the Constitutional Court was the same argument used by the State previously to request the lifting of these provisional measures. However, once the measures had been lifted, […] the Executive Branch undertook a series of measures to obtain a reinterpretation of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of May 24, 2011.” Therefore, the Commission indicated that, “in the absence of final decision, added to the lack of clarity of the situation under examination, [… it] consider[ed] that the State cannot justify the lifting of these provisional measures based exclusively on the mere affirmation that the judgment of the Constitutional Court is binding.” The Commission also reiterated that it “plans to conduct the deliberations on the merits of case 12,794 during its next session,” and also that “the State’s arguments on the sufficiency or insufficiency of the 5