3. The State requested that these provisional measures be lifted “as there was no reason justifying the Commission’s request to extend them,” in the absence of the elements of extreme gravity, urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage. It indicated, inter alia, that the element of urgency “had been eliminated by an action of the Commission itself,” because it had failed to issue a decision on merits in the proceedings before it on this matter within the time frame established by the Court in its order of May 28, 2010. The State indicated that the “Court should examine and rule on the guarantees for the life of Wong Ho Wing granted by the People’s Republic of China if he is extradited,” so as to be able to determine the existence of the elements required for provisional measures. In this regard, it asserted that, since it had not done this in its order of May 28, 2010, the Court had “violate[d] the guarantee of indicating the grounds for its orders, to which the State […] has a right, [which could] give rise to a grave precedent of ensuring impunity for a person prosecuted for common offenses based on the unsupported argument of a risk to the life of the petitioner.” It added that the “insufficient grounds provided in the order [resulted in] a [decision] that limits the State’s exercise of its treaty-based rights and obligations […], such as those derived from the Extradition Treaty […] with the People’s Republic of China,” also violating its right to due process and the right of defense. 4. Peru also referred to a new guarantee offered by China, in addition to those previously indicated; according to this, it had “invite[d] the Peruvian State to intervene, in accordance with the undertakings made within the extradition procedure, to monitor both the trial and the execution of the corresponding judgment that could be handed down.” Furthermore, Peru indicated that it had a list of cases provided by the People’s Republic of China “in which, in the case of similar offenses for which the death penalty had been ordered, this had not been applied, and imprisonment had been imposed in all of them.” Peru advised that, although the State had ratified the American Convention and accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, it was also obliged to comply with the extradition treaty signed with China, “since the two instruments were not incompatible; but rather complementary.” Given that sufficient guarantees existed concerning the beneficiary’s life, the State was not failing to comply with the Convention if it extradited Wong Ho Wing in application of the said extradition treaty. Lastly, Peru indicated that, in application of the principle of representation or of administration of justice by representation, “the application of Peruvian criminal law for offenses committed outside national territory […] arises as an alternative, if it is unable to hand over [Wong Ho Wing to China].” 5. The representative of the beneficiary informed the Court that he had presented “an application for […] Wong Ho Wing to be tried in Peru, which [reveals that he and his client were not] trying to use the inter-American human rights system to protect illegal acts and to seek […] impunity.” He reiterated that the extradition procedure “has been plagued with a series of grave irregularities,” including the fact that “the Chinese Government did not attach the pertinent article of the Criminal Code establishing the death penalty to the extradition request,” and indicated that “considerable political pressure [exists] that reveals the interference of the Executive Branch with the Judiciary throughout the extradition procedure.” He stated that “[t]he document shown by the [State was not credible] to be able to say […] that, if Wong Ho Wing was extradited to China, the death penalty would not be applied.” He indicated that, as interested parties, they have been “completely excluded from the procedure, because they had never been informed of how the guarantees were presented and their content, [but rather] had been informed [of them] through information […] provided by the Commission.” With regard to the new guarantee mentioned by the 3