9. This Court emphasizes that, in the present matter, the preventive aspect of the measures seeks to avoid non-compliance with an eventual decision by the organs of the inter-American system and, in this way, to prevent “irreversible [damage to] the right to petition established in Article 44 of the American Convention,” considering, in particular, that, in this matter, the proposed beneficiary would be extradited to a State beyond the scope of the protection of the inter-American human rights system. 12 10. In its Orders of May and August, 2013, this Court stressed that, despite the decision from the Constitutional Court ordering that the Executive Branch abstain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing, as well as the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice in the sense that it declared that it was not in order to issue a new advisory decision, the Executive Branch has abstained from adopting a final decision regarding the extradition of Mr. Wong Ho Wing. 13 The Court recalls that the State itself affirmed that the Executive Branch makes the final decision in an extradition procedure. Following the issuance of the Merits Report, the State indicated that “the process of extradition is not complete” and that “[it] disagrees with the arguments developed by the Inter-American Commission” therein (supra considering clause 6). With regards to the recommendation of that body to “culminate, at the earliest opportunity” the process of extradition, “denying the request for extradition in strict compliance with the judgment of the Constitutional Court,” Peru noted that the foregoing “would be evaluated by the appropriate authorities in accordance with the current Peruvian legislation” and the regular domestic proceedings in the context of the process of extradition, which “is in its final stage” (supra Considering clause 6). Therefore, the Court considers that the situation of uncertainty persists with regard to the possibility of extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing for, inter alia, the crime of smuggling goods, which is punishable by the death penalty. 11. The Court recalls that it has already established that the exact determination and explanation of whether the reform of the criminal law [that would annul the death penalty for one of the offenses for which the beneficiary’s extradition is requested] would be applicable in the possible trial of Mr. Wong Ho Wing undertaken by the requesting State constitutes an analysis that is beyond the proceedings of these provisional measures. 14 Furthermore, as this Court indicated in its Order of May 2010 and reiterated in its Order of June 2012 15, when considering a request for provisional measures, the Court may only consider the procedural obligations of the State as a party to the American Convention; accordingly, the Court is not competent, in response to a request for provisional measures, Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, considering clause 4, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May22, 2013, considering clause 6. 12 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, Considering clause 14; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, Considering clause 40, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013, Considering clause 7. 13 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 19, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013, Considering clause 5. 14 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, Considering clause 31; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 15, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013, Considering clause 10. 15 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, Considering clause 7, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, Considering clause 33. 5