2 3. The brief of March 2, 2010, in which the State requested a deadline extension in order to present additional information and the comments required by the Acting President with regard to the request for provisional measures. 4. The brief of March 3, 2010, in which the Inter-American Commission submitted, in a timely fashion, the comments requested by the Acting President. 5. The note of March 3, 2010, note in which the Secretariat, following the instructions of the Acting President, granted the State the deadline extension it had requested, giving it until March 8, 2010. It also informed Peru that it had until that deadline to submit comments on the brief filed by the Commission on March 3, 2010. 6. The brief of March 5, 2010, in which the Commission presented additional information related to its request. 7. The brief and its annexes, of March 8, 2010, and received the following day, in which Peru submitted its comments and the requested documents on time (supra Having Seen 2 and 5). 8. The March 24, 2010, note in which the Secretariat sent the parties the briefs of the Inter-American Commission and the State, respectively dated March 5th and 8th, 2010, along with their corresponding annexes. 9. The alleged facts on which the request for provisional measures presented by the Commission is based, to wit: a) On January 20, 2009, the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru (hereinafter “the Supreme Court” or “CSJP”) granted a request by China to extradite Mr. Wong Ho Wing, a Chinese citizen who has been in detention since October 27, 2008. The request was based on the alleged commission of the crimes of smuggling, customs fraud, and bribery under current domestic Chinese law. Following this ruling, on January 21, 2009, Mr. Wong Ho Wing sent the Commission a request for provisional measures, given that the crimes for which he was to be extradited can, when considered aggravated, be punished with life in prison or the death penalty; b) Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s representative argued that the extradition procedure has not met all the legal requirements and has suffered from irregularities with regard to deadlines, the extradition hearing, defense attorney participation, and the participation of the Public Prosecutors. Likewise, the representative pointed to issues related to incomplete or erroneous translations that formed the basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling. As for the merits of the case, the representative indicated that under legislation governing Peruvian criminal procedure, the Supreme Court must rule to reject the extradition, as the following are among the grounds for doing so: a) the minimum requirements of due process are not guaranteed, and b) the death penalty could be applicable and no guarantees that it will not be have been granted; c) On January 27, 2009, the Commission requested information from the State on the situation at issue. In a response dated February 2, 2009, Peru indicated that there was no imminent risk to the life of Mr. Wong Ho Wing given that the extradition process is still ongoing and that, given that there were no guarantees that the death penalty would not be applied, the State would refrain from