advised that on March 26, 2012, a public hearing was held on the merits of the case in order to complete the processing of the case and proceed to issue a merits report as soon as possible.’”8 The Court also indicated that it was “opportune that the InterAmerican Commission take a prompt decision on case No. 12,794 before that organ,” taking into account the preventive aspect indicated, […] as well as the State observations on the certainty required by the organs intervening in the extradition procedure of Wong Ho Wing.”9 8. Despite the foregoing, in the course of the six months since the adoption of these measures up until December 2012, the Court has not received any information from the Commission on the adoption of the said merits report, or on the situation of the said case before this organ. Furthermore, it has not received any information from the State or any objection from Peru to the continuation of the measures granted in favor of the beneficiary. Therefore, on December 6, 2012, the acting President issued an Order in which he found it pertinent to extend the validity of these provisional measures until March 1, 2013, in order, inter alia, “to allow the Inter-American Commission to fulfill its mandate under the Convention and [to proceed] to examine case No. 12,794,” in the understanding that the circumstances that, at the time, justified the adoption of these provisional measures had not changed.10 In addition, in the said Order, the acting President required the State and the Inter-American Commission to present updated information so that the Court would have all the necessary elements to make an adequate assessment of the validity and implementation of these provisional measures, while establishing that “the Court in plenary [would] consider and deliberate on the need to maintain these measures during its ninety-eighth regular session to be held at the seat of the Court from February 4 to 16, 2013.”11 9. In particular, the acting President required the Inter-American Commission to present completed and detailed information on: (i) the subsistence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency for Wong Ho Wing that could cause irreparable damage to his rights; (ii) the actual status of Case No. 12,794 before the Commission and, if appropriate, (iii) the approximate date on which it considers that it could reach a decision on the merits of the case. In addition, the acting President asked the State to present current information on the status of the beneficiary’s extradition procedure. 10. In this regard, the Inter-American Commission emphasized that “neither in the context of case [No.] 12,794 nor in the context of the provisional measures, has the State of Peru provided updated information indicating that there has been a change in the situation Wong Ho Wing.” Based on this, it indicated that “the factual assumptions on which the decision was taken to re-establish the provisional measures on June 26, 2012, remain identical and, therefore, the situation of extreme gravity, urgency and risk of irreparable damage subsists”; similarly, “the need remains to allow the organs of the inter-American system to make a final ruling on the case,” in a decision that will be effective. Regarding the actual status of case No. 12,794 before that organ, the Commission advised that it continues at the merits stage and that it had decided to 8 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, forty-second considering paragraph. 9 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, forty-first considering paragraph. 10 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the acting President of the Court of December 6, 2012, eighth and ninth considering paragraphs. 11 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the acting President of the Court of December 6, 2012, eighth and ninth considering paragraphs. 4