88 Constitutional Court’s ruling. Of the various remedies to which Peru’s Executive Branch resorted for a re-interpretation, not one made the claim that the Constitutional Court relied on something beyond the question of whether the crime carried the death penalty, when in fact this issue was never considered or examined by any of the authorities who intervened in the extradition process, except for the Constitutional Court whose ruling in favor of the victim the Executive Branch would have everyone disregard. 289. As indicated in this section, the Commission concludes that to this day, the Peruvian State is still in noncompliance with its obligation to ensure Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s right to life and right to humane treatment. In the period between May 24, 2011 and the date of approval of this report, the State has violated the right to judicial protection, specifically the provision contained in Article 25(2)(c) of the American Convention concerning enforcement of court rulings. 2.3.4 Conclusion 290. The Commission concludes that the Peruvian State has processed an extradition request with out taking into consideration that the requesting State committed serious omissions and irregularities in its original request; and has an international reputation for application of the death penalty and complaints of the use of torture. Without asserting that it is per se impossible to grant extradition under those circumstances, the Commission must make the point that the Peruvian State had an obligation to be especially diligent and serious in processing the request, so as to clear up any questions that these special circumstances could create and thereby comply with its duty to protect the life and personal integrity of a person under its jurisdiction. 291. In the instant case, the State has been taking isolated measures only insofar as those measures have enabled it to make arguments to the Inter-American Court claiming that the provisional measures sought by the IACHR were out of order. However, from the Peruvian State’s first to last communications to the Commission and to the Court, it has emphasized the argument that Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s life and personal integrity have never been at any risk. Yet, based on the foregoing analysis of the various phases of the extradition process, the Commission concludes that the additional measures taken by the State to make its case to the Inter-American Court on the matter of provisional measures, have been limited to procuring individualized assurances concerning the person of Mr. Wong Ho Wing, in connection with his criminal prosecution and the crimes for which his extradition is sought. To this day, the State has not asked the People’s Republic of China for an explanation of its original omissions which, to any rational onlooker, suggest an intention to cover up the most important information that these requests seek: whether or not the death penalty is applicable. The IACHR does not know whether the Peruvian State asked the People’s Republic of China for that information, or whether China had supplied that information satisfactorily. What is more, as previously observed, this issue has to do with the question of whether, by law, the death penalty can be imposed and, in one way or another, goes to all the other contextual elements, possible unlawful or secret practices, or real prospects for monitoring and effective follow-up, among other aspects. Thus far, the Peruvian State has focused its efforts on getting a reinterpretation of the Constitutional Court’s ruling and has demonstrated no concern at all for these issues. 292. The Peruvian State’s international obligations to respect Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s right to life and right to personal integrity were not the only grounds it could have cited to refuse extradition in his case. Under Peru’s own domestic laws, its Constitution and its Bilateral Treaty with China, Peru had the option to prosecute Mr. Wong Ho Wing itself –which was a course of action suggested by the