11 14. The Court considers that the requisite of the irreparable nature of the damage has been complied with, in its protective dimension, because of the risk of harm to the right to life owing to the possibility of an irremediable measure such as the death penalty. Indeed, the possible application of the death penalty entails the most extreme and irreversible situation. Regarding the preventive dimension, Mr. Wing’s extradition would thwart compliance with an eventual decision of the organs of the system concerning the existence of a violation of Article 8 and 25 of the Convention. Indeed, if the examination of the petition lodged with the Commission leads to the conclusion that the alleged flaws in the extradition process truly existed, the damage caused could not be remedied. Thus, the right of petition embodied in Article 44 of the Convention would be affected irreversibly. 15. Based on the foregoing considerations, to ensure that the Inter-American Commission can fulfill its mandate under the Convention, the Court finds it pertinent to admit the request for provisional measures until December 17, 2010, in order to allow that organ to examine petition P-366-09. Notwithstanding the above, the Court deems it necessary to mention that the Inter-American Commission has been analyzing the petition for more than thirteen months and, despite the urgent processing accorded, it has not ruled on admissibility. The Court underscores that the Commission’s delay in adopting a decision would, on the one hand, delay the extradition procedure that has been underway for 19 months and, on the other, extend the uncertainty of the legal situation of Mr. Wing, who is deprived of his liberty. Furthermore, since the Inter-American Commission’s request for provisional measures is based on the requisite of urgency, the Court considers it important that the greatest celerity should prevail in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission to decide on the petition. Clearly, it would be inconsistent if the urgency that the Commission argued to request provisional measures did not entail urgent consideration of the merits of the petition. Based on the above, if the Commission has not reached a decision on the merits of the petition, when the time accorded for the adoption of these provisional measures expires, it can be presumed that the alleged urgency is no longer applicable. 16. In addition, the Court emphasizes, as it has in previous cases although in other contexts, the importance of the mechanism of extradition and the obligation that States collaborate with each other in this regard. 20 It is in the interests of the community of Nations that individuals who have been accused of specific offenses be brought to justice. Hence, the States’ international obligations concerning human rights and the requirements of due process must be observed in extradition processes, while this juridical mechanism cannot be used as a path to impunity. 17. By adopting provisional measures, the Court is guaranteeing exclusively that the Inter-American Commission can comply with its mandate under the Convention. In light of the above, the Commission must act with due celerity and rule on the petition filed in this matter to ensure that the system of individual petitions and any delay in their processing does not obstruct the administration of justice. 18. Lastly, while the matter is being decided by the organs of the inter-American system, Peru may take the necessary measures with regard to Mr. Wing to ensure that his eventual 20 Cf. Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 132; La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, paras. 159 and 160; Ituango Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 7, 2009, Nineteenth considering paragraph, and Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, fortieth and forty-first considering paragraphs.