ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS∗ OF APRIL 27, 2012 REQUEST FOR 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, whereby it 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, whereby 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 provisional measures in favor of Wong Ho Wing. The Commission founded its request on the fact that, after the provisional measures had been lifted, 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 notes exchanged between different State entities that appeared to indicate that the extradition procedure was continuing and pending the final decision of the Executive, despite the decisions of the Constitutional Court. In addition, the Ministry of Justice had asked the Supreme Court of Justice to emit a “complementary advisory decision” on the extradition procedure. 4. The arguments of the Commission to justify its request for provisional measures relate to the fact that, eight months after the Constitutional Court issued the decisions ordering the Executive to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing, those decisions have not resulted in terminating this procedure with a negative decision in the terms ordered by that Court. To the contrary, the Commission has received information from the State that it continued to await a decision on whether or not the extradition was in order, and affirmed categorically that, in its opinion, there was no risk that the death penalty would be imposed in this case. According to the Commission, this affirmation was inconsistent with the State’s previous declarations to the effect that it was ∗ 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 of its Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, in keeping with Articles 4(2) and 5 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, Judge Manuel Ventura Robles, Vice President of the Court, replaced him as acting President with regard to this request for provisional measures.