83 265. From the observations made thus far, it is clear that from the time the Peruvian State received the extradition request to the time when the Supreme Court issued its advisory resolution on January 20, 2009, the Peruvian State was in non-compliance with its obligation to ensure Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s right to life, because it failed to demand assurances that the death penalty would not be applied. 2.3.2. Analysis of the state authorities’ actions between the time the first petition of habeas corpus was filed and the second advisory resolution issued on January 27, 2010 266. Following the Supreme Court’s advisory resolution of January 20, 2009, Mr. Wong Ho Wing filed his first petition of habeas corpus against the authorities in the Executive Branch who would decide the matter of his extradition. In it he alleged threats to his life and personal integrity. 267. On February 2, 2009, by which time the habeas corpus petition had been filed and the Inter-American Commission was already seized of the matter, the Consul from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China sent an explanation of the punishment that Wong Ho Wing would face; he said there was no possibility that either the death penalty or life imprisonment would be applied. On February 10, 2009, the Commission on Extraditions and Convict Transfers issued a report on the extradition request, alluding to a communication from the IACHR and stating that a translation of Article 151 of the Criminal Code had to be requested, as well as assurances that the death penalty would not be applied. 268. On April 2, 2009, Lima’s 56th Special Criminal Court upheld the petition of habeas corpus, and declared the advisory resolution null and void inasmuch as it did not state clearly and unequivocally that the petitioner could not be extradited to stand trial for the crimes he was alleged to have committed, the ultimate punishment for which was death. 269. With the Commission’s precautionary measures already in force, between December 10 and 11, 2009, one year after Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s arrest, the first “assurances” were received that the People’s Republic of China would not apply the death penalty. One was presented by the diplomatic authorities, while the other indicated that the People’s Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China had decided that if Wong Ho Wing was found guilty “through the Court’s proceedings”, it would not sentence him to death, even though that was the penalty that the law prescribed. 270. Based on that resolution, on January 27, 2010 the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber issued a new advisory resolution favoring extradition. The Chamber regarded the decision of the People’s Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China as an “ineluctable commitment” which showed that there was “no risk whatever” that the death penalty would be applied in China. 271. Here, the Commission must evaluate whether, given the circumstances of this specific case and based on the standards described above regarding diplomatic assurances, the Peruvian State acted in keeping with its obligation to guarantee the right to life in the procurement of and weight attached to the assurances given by the People’s Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China. 272. The first matter that the Commission observes is that the Supreme Court’s January 27, 2010 advisory resolution, like that of January 20, 2009 already examined, makes no mention at all of the two considerations that, under the case law of the European Court on this subject, are basic to any analysis of and weight attached to assurances of this kind, namely the context and the prospects for monitoring the criminal proceedings that will be conducted in the requesting State and the eventual