provisional measures, because “the State has changed its position and the Executive Branch, alleging the existence of supposed ‘new facts,’ had even asked the Supreme Court to issue a complementary advisory decision in the extradition procedure.” 4 On June 26, 2012, the Court once again granted these provisional measures, considering that “given the State’s uncertainty with regard to the possibility of extradition, […] the Court f[ound] that the considerations [contained in its Order of May 28, 2010], with regard to the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage [were] applicable to the […] situation of the proposed beneficiary” at that time. 5 In both May 2010 and June 2012, the Court ordered the adoption of the provisional measures only so as “to allow the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to examine and rule on [petition P366-09, which corresponds to] case No. 12,794.” 6 5. Subsequently, by Orders of February, May, and August of 2013, the Court has maintained and extended the validity of the present measures considering that the situation of uncertainty with regard to the possibility of extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing persists, which justified the granting of these provisional measures in June of 2012. 7 In its latest Order, this Court took into account that, on July 18, 2013, Inter-American Commission adopted Merits Report No. 78/13 with regard to case at hand. As noted in that Report, the Commission issued four recommendations to the State and, “[i]n accordance with the procedure provided for in Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention,” it transmitted the Report on the Merits to the State and requested that it present information on the compliance with such recommendations within two months. Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention, within a period of three months from the date of the transmittal of the Merits Report, the Inter-American Commission had the authority to determine whether or not to refer the case related to the present provisional measures to the Court, or, to continue to hear the case and produce a report, which it could or could not publish. 8 By virtue of the foregoing, in its Order of August of 2013, the Court extended the present measures until March 31, 2014 to avoid the frustration of the compliance with an eventual determination by 4 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, Having seen clause 4, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013, Considering clause 4. 5 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, Considering clause 38, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013, Considering clause 4. 6 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, operative paragraph 1, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, operative paragraph 1. 7 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, Considering clause 15; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 22, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013, Considering clause 22. 8 Article 50 of the Convention establishes that: “If a settlement is not reached, the Commission shall, within the time limit established by its Statute, draw up a report setting forth the facts and stating its conclusions. […]2. The report shall be transmitted to the states concerned, which shall not be at liberty to publish it. 3. In transmitting the report, the Commission may make such proposals and recommendations as it sees fit.” On its behalf, Article 51(1) of the Convention establishes that “, “[i]f, within a period of three months from the date of the transmittal of the report of the Commission to the states concerned, the matter has not either been settled or submitted by the Commission or by the state concerned to the Court and its jurisdiction accepted, the Commission may, by the vote of an absolute majority of its members, set forth its opinion and conclusions concerning the question submitted for its consideration.” Morever, Article 61(1) establishes that “Only the States Parties and the Commission shall have the right to submit a case to the Court.” See also, Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993. Series A No. 13, para. 47, and Case of the Saramaka People V. Suriname. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 28, 1999. Serie C No. 172, para. 39. 3