its response. The State submitted its response on May 1, 2009 and sent the respective annexes on May 15 of the same year. That documentation was forwarded to the petitioner on May 19, 2009. 5. The petitioner sent additional briefs on July 9, October 11 and 13, and December 16, 2009 and on January 12, February 2, 17 and 22, May 3 and October 22, 2010. The State in turn sent additional information on August 13 and December 9 and 23, 2009 and on January 13 and 20, March 1 and 17, July 16, August 20, October 25 and 26, 2010. 6. On August 31, 2010 the State asked that it be granted a public hearing during the 140th Regular Period of Sessions of the IACHR. On September 24, 2010, the IACHR notified the parties that a hearing on the admissibility of the petition had been granted. This hearing took place on October 26, 2010. B. Processing of precautionary measures 7. On January 21, 2009 the IACHR received a request for precautionary measures on behalf of Mr. Wong Ho Wing. On January 27, 2009 it requested information from the State, which sent its response on February 2 of the same year. The petitioner sent additional information on January 27, February 5 and 6, March 17 and 20, 2009. The State in turn made additional submissions on February 4, 6, and 13 and March 4, 2009. 8. On March 31, 2009 the IACHR granted precautionary measures to Mr. Wong Ho Wing pursuant to Article 25 of its Rules of Procedure and asked the Peruvian State to refrain from extraditing him until a decision could be issued on petition 366-09. The State submitted information on the implementation of precautionary measures on May 1 and October 30, 2009 and on January 13 and 20, 2010. The petitioner in turn submitted observations on September 21, November 9, and December 16, 2009, and on February 5 and 11, 2010. 9. In some of the briefs submitted to the IACHR the parties made reference to the precautionary measures and to petition 366-09 without making any distinction between them. C. Processing of provisional measures 10. On November 9, 2009 a communication was received from the petitioner asking the Commission to bring a request for provisional measures to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Among other factors, the petitioner argued that on October 5, 2009 the President of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice asserted in a public hearing on the extradition of Wong Ho Wing that the precautionary measure granted by the IACHR on March 31, 2009 would not be binding on the court since its content would only be binding on the Peruvian Executive Branch. 11. On February 2, 2010 the petitioner reiterated the request to seek provisional measures form the Inter-American Court, basing that request on the fact that on January 27, 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice had declared admissible the request for the extradition of Mr. Wong Ho Wing made by the People’s Republic of China. On February 24, 2010 the IACHR asked the Inter-American Court to grant provisional measures to Mr. Wong Ho Wing, pursuant to Article 63.2 of the Convention. On March 24, 2010 the acting president of the court, Judge Leonardo A. Franco, asked the Peruvian State “to refrain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing as long as the request for provisional measures remained undecided by the full panel of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights.” 12. On May 28, 2010 the Inter-American Court issued provisional measures in favor of Mr. Wong Ho Wing and asked the State “to refrain from extraditing him until December 17, 2010, so as to allow the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to examine and rule on petition P-366-09 submitted to that body on March 27, 2009.” 2