10. The briefs of April 2, 5 and 16, 2012, and the attachment to the latter, in which the Inter-American Commission, inter alia, forwarded its observations on the information provided by the State, as well as additional information on a decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The Commission reiterated its concern owing to the change in the State’s position before the organs of the inter-American system. In this regard, it recalled that, when the State asked the Court to lift the provisional measures, it did so on the undertaking to comply with the decisions of the Constitutional Court ordering that Wong Ho Wing must not be extradited. This took place months after the authorities were aware of the amendment to the Chinese Criminal Code, which is now argued as a “new fact.” The State is now arguing that there is no danger of the application of the death penalty, which openly disregards the ruling of the Constitutional Court. This position of the Ministry of Justice reinterprets the Constitutional Court’s decision ordering directly and specifically to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing. Furthermore, the Commission observed that the State is insisting on the guarantees offered by the requesting State, an issue that was decided by the Inter-American Court in its first decision in relation to the provisional measures adopted previously in this matter, to the effect that it was not appropriate to analyze them in this proceeding, but rather they related to the merits of the matter. The Commission indicated that, in the absence of the State’s undertaking to abide by the decision of the Constitutional Court, the grounds for lifting the provisional measures ceased to exist. Lastly, the Commission considered that the information provided by the State on the amendment of the Chinese Criminal Code “was insufficient to conclude categorically that there is no risk of the application of the death penalty.” Among other aspects, the Commission indicated that the State had requested guarantees and translations piecemeal. The translation provided on the supposed beneficial retroactivity of this amendment is a cause for concern because the translation contains serious grammatical errors that make it difficult to understand the text, notwithstanding that, in any case, this analysis corresponds to the merits of the matter. Based on the above, the Commission reiterated its request of March 2, 2012, in its entirety. 11. In addition, in its brief of April 16, 2012, the Commission advised that, on March 14, 2012, the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had rejected the request of the Ministry of Justice that it issue a “complementary advisory decision” indicating, in summary, that: (a) in the extradition procedure of Wong Ho Wing, both the ordinary and the constitutional jurisdiction had issued final rulings; (b) the Supreme Court of Justice had opportunely declared in order the request for the passive extradition of Wong Ho Wing with regard to the offenses of evasion of customs duties and bribery; (c) subsequently, the Constitutional Court had ordered the State, represented by the Executive, to abstain from extraditing this individual and urged the State to proceed in accordance with article 4 of the extradition treaty between Peru and the Peoples’ Republic of China and, in an explanatory decision, had indicated that Peru should proceed in accordance with article 3 of the Criminal Code; (d) the Chamber of the Supreme Court had already delivered the respective ruling that was equivalent to an immutable judgment and that could not be amended through a socalled “complementary advisory decision”; (e) two final rulings existed, one of an advisory nature (of the Judiciary) and the other of a binding nature (of the Constitutional Court), which the Executive must obey, based on domestic law. 12. The Commission indicated that the said decision was relevant because: (a) it revealed that it had been the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights that asked the Supreme Court of Justice to issue a complementary advisory decision, as the Commission had stated in its request, but the State had contested; (b) the decision 3