- 48 and based on the principle of the favorable retroactivity of the criminal law, the Court considers that, following the annulment of the death penalty for the offense of smuggling, there is no real risk that the death penalty will be applied legally to Wong Ho Wing if he is extradited to China. 152. Nevertheless, the Commission and the representative argue that there have already been autonomous violations of the right to life of Wong Ho Wing, owing to the failure to consider the risk of the application of the death penalty in the first advisory decision and to the absence of sufficient guarantees that it would not be applied in the second advisory decision of the Supreme Court, regardless of its subsequent annulment. Regarding the first advisory decision (dated January 20, 2009), the Court emphasizes that this decision was annulled as a result of an application for habeas corpus, so that it has no legal effects (supra para. 70). Regarding the second advisory decision (dated January 27, 2010), the Court reiterates that, inasmuch as the extradition process has not concluded and Wong Ho Wing has not been extradited, in order to determine whether, at this time, there is a risk to his right to life if he is extradited, the Court must assess all the information, including information subsequent to that judicial decision (supra paras. 140 and 141). When a possible risk to his right to life existed, the Court’s provisional measures were effective to protect Wong Ho Wing. However, it would not be appropriate that, based on the information that the State had at the time of the second advisory decision, the Court determine that, at the present time, there is risk to the right to life of Wong Ho Wing if he is extradited, owing to the supposed possibility of the application of the death penalty, when subsequent measures and information have eliminated that possibility, as previously determined (supra para. 151). 153. In addition, the Court notes that the Commission also argued that there was “a risk of the clandestine or secret application of the death penalty” (supra para. 121). In this regard, the Court stresses that neither the Commission nor the representative have provided specific information on the alleged risk. In general, and as part of the contextual elements in relation to the application of the death penalty in the requesting State, the Commission and the representative indicated that data and statistics on its application are not public, they are presumable handled as State secrets, and there is no detailed information on the number of persons condemned to death,208 and this has been confirmed by the requesting State itself.209 Nevertheless, this Court considers that a real, foreseeable and personal risk that Wong Ho Wing could be subjected to extrajudicial execution if he is extradited to China cannot be derived from this information. 154. Furthermore, the Commission and the representative referred to information on reports concerning due process in trials for crimes punishable by the death penalty, and the number of 208 In this regard, the case file contains reports of the Committee against Torture (2008); the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2009); the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak (2010), and the Periodic Universal Review Working Group (2013). Cf. UN, Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations on China, December 12, 2008, CAT/C/CHN/CO/4, paras. 17 and 34. Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/CAT.C.CHN.CO.4.pdf; Human Rights Council, Compilation prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in accordance with paragraph 15(b) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1. People’s Republic of China (including Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions (HKSAR and MSAR)), January 6, 2009, A/HRC/WG.6/4/CHN/2, para. 16. Available at: http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session4/CN/A_HRC_WG6_4_CHN_2_S.pdf; Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Follow-up to the recommendations. China, February 26, 2010, A/HRC/13/39/Add.6, p. 45, Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/ A.HRC.13.39.Add%206_EFS.pdf, and Human Rights Council, Report of the Periodic Universal Review Working Group. China (including Hong Kong (China) and Macao (China)), December 4, 2013, A/HRC/25/5, p. 22. Available at: http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G13/188/58/PDF/G1318858.pdf?OpenElement. 209 In answer to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, the People’s Republic of China indicated that the statistics for cases involving the death penalty were consolidated with those involving life imprisonment and imprisonment for more than five years. Cf. Committee against Torture, Comments by the Government of the People’s Republic of China concerning the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, December 18, 2009, CAT/C/CHN/CO/4/Add.2, p. 20. Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/followup/CAT.C.CHN.CO.4. Add2.pdf