ceased to exist, because the Constitutional Court had ordered the State to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing and to proceed to prosecute him by representation in Peru. The State attached a copy of the judgments of the Constitutional Court of May 24 and June 9, 2011, in the first of which, among other considerations, the said Court indicated: In this regard, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has emphasized that Articles 4 and 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, recognize the international obligation of the States Parties “not to subject a person to the risk of the application of the death penalty via extradition”[;] Nevertheless, the Peruvian State has two obligations that, supposedly, it must fulfill. On the one hand, it has the obligation to extradite Wong Ho Wing owing to the Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Peru and the People’s Republic of China. On the other hand, it also has the obligation not to subject Wong Ho Wing to the risk of the application of the death penalty via extradition and to prosecute him for the offenses for which his extradition was requested. Apparently, the above-mentioned obligations are incompatible, because if Wong Ho Wing is extradited, the Peruvian State is prevented from prosecuting him. To the contrary, if the Peruvian State decides to prosecute Wong Ho Wing, it would be prevented from extraditing him, preferring to safeguard the protection of the right to life. This apparent conflict of obligations must be resolved, bearing in mind the protection of the right to life of Wong Ha Wing, which is also an obligation imposed on the Peruvian State under Articles 4 and 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 7. The representative asked that the provisional measures be maintained, among other arguments because, even though “the Constitutional Court has delivered judgment, to date, Wong Ho Wing continues to be deprived of his liberty.” In addition, he argued that “[s]ince it has been decided that extradition is not appropriate, it is evident that, in this context, the detention is no longer valid.” He also stated that the Constitutional Court’s judgment “does not imply that the reasons have disappeared for which, at any time, he can be prosecuted under the domestic jurisdiction, or be expelled from Peru so that, once he leaves the country, he may be captured by Interpol.” Consequently, the situation of gravity that justified the petition before the inter-American system “subsists […] with other characteristics that make the presence of the Inter-American Commission necessary […] and, above all, the effective implementation of the provisional measure ordered by the Court.” Lastly, he stated that, to date, there had been no final ruling on the merits of the matter by the Commission, which “prolongs […] the situation of legal uncertainty that directly affects the petitioner.” 8. The Inter-American Commission assessed positively the judgments delivered by the Constitutional Court and observed that, according to the information provided, “they would eliminate juridically the possibility that the State of Peru order the extradition of Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China.” In addition, the Commission took note of the express indication of the State in its reports to the Court that “it would strictly observe the said Constitutional Court judgments, in accordance with domestic law.” In conclusion, it considered that the Constitutional Court’s judgment had changed the factual presumptions that justified maintaining the measures and found that the State’s request to lift the measures was admissible. 9. The Court observes that the arguments made by the representative to request the continuation of these provisional measures (supra considering paragraph **) refer to issues relating to the merits of the matter being processed before the InterAmerican Commission, as well as other aspects outside the purpose of this provisional proceeding. 3