ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ∗ OF JUNE 26, 2012 PROVISIONAL MEASURES WITH REGARD TO THE REPUBLIC OF PERU MATTER OF WONG HO WING HAVING SEEN: 1. The Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) of March 24, 2010, as well as the Orders of the Court of May 28 and November 26, 2010, and March 4 and July 1, 2011, in which it was decided, inter alia, to require the Republic of Peru (hereinafter also “the State” or “Peru”) to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing. 2. The Order of October 10, 2011, in which the Court decided to lift the provisional measures it had ordered. 3. The brief of March 2, 2012, and its attachments, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) again requested the adoption of provisional measures in favor of Wong Ho Wing. The Commission founded its request on the fact that, following the lifting of the provisional measures, it had received a series of briefs from the representative of the former beneficiary indicating the existence of new facts that placed the latter at risk of extradition. The representative provided information on letters exchanged between different State agencies that would indicate that the extradition procedure was still being processed and pending a final decision from the Executive, despite the rulings of the Constitutional Court. In addition, the Ministry of Justice had asked the Supreme Court of Justice to issue a “complementary advisory decision” on the extradition procedure. 4. The arguments used by the Commission to found its request for provisional measures refer, inter alia, to the fact that, more than eight months after the Constitutional Court had issued the rulings ordering the Executive to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing, these rulings had still not had the effect of terminating the said procedure with a negative decision, as ordered by that court. On the contrary, the Commission had received information from the State that the decision on whether or not the extradition was in order remained pending, and that the State had declared “categorically that there was no risk” that the death penalty would be applied in this case. The Commission considered that this statement was “inconsistent” with the previous declarations of the State that it was complying “scrupulously” with the ∗ Judge Diego García-Sayán, a Peruvian national, recused himself from hearing this matter, in accordance with Articles 19 of the Court’s Statute and 19(1) of its Rules of Procedure. Consequently, in accordance with Articles 4(2) and 5 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, Judge Manuel Ventura Robles, Vice President of the Court, became acting President in this request for provisional measures.