establishes the res judicata and binding nature of the judgments of the Constitutional Court ordering the Executive to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing; (c) the position of the Supreme Court of Justice appears to be contrary to the State’s position before the Inter-American Court; the position of the Executive is in favor of the extradition, despite the rulings of the Constitutional Court analyzing the possible risk of the application of the death penalty, and (d) the new decision of the Supreme Court of Justice implies fulfillment of the requirement of extreme urgency, because the only element that remains pending is the decision of the Executive, which is discretional, and the latter has indicated before the organs of the inter-American system that there is no risk of the death penalty, despite the concerns that have been expressed to the Executive and the absence of a final decision of the organs of the inter-American system. The Commission asked the Court to rule on the request for provisional measures as soon as possible, in order to avoid irreparable harm to Wong Ho Wing, as well as to ensure the practical effect of the decision that the Inter-American Commission will eventually adopt in this matter. 13. The note of April 18, 2012, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the acting President, asked Peru, by April 23, 2012, at the latest, to refer to the legal effects of the decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of March 14, 2012, with regard to: (a) the extradition procedure, in particular whether, following this decision, the only requirement pending under domestic law is the decision of the Executive; (b) the decisions of the Constitutional Court ordering that Wong Ho Wing must not be extradited, and (c) whether, under domestic law, the decisions of the Constitutional Court ordering that Wong Ho Wing must not be extradited are legally binding for the Executive and other State authorities. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) on July 28, 1978, and, in accordance with its Article 62, accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that in “cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters not yet submitted to its consideration, at the request of the Commission, order the provisional measures that it deems pertinent. This provision is, in turn, regulated in Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.1 3. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that, for the Court to be able to order provisional measures, three conditions must concur: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency” and (iii) that the purpose is to “avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court is asked to intervene. In the same way, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them has ceased to be valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered.2 1 Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 2 Cf. Case of De la Cruz Flores. Request for provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 29, 2012, second considering paragraph. 4