observations of the State (supra considering paragraph 9), the Court recalls that it has already established that the exact determination and explanation of whether the reform of the criminal law [that annulled the death penalty for one of the offenses for which the beneficiary’s extradition is requested] would be applicable in the eventual trial of Wong Ho Wing undertaken by the requesting State constitutes an analysis that is beyond the proceedings on provisional measures. 13 Furthermore, as this Court indicated in its Order of May 2010 and reiterated in its Order of June 2012, 14 when considering a request for provisional measures this Court may only consider the obligations of a procedural nature of the State as a party to the American Convention, so that this Court is not competent to rule on the compatibility of the extradition procedure with the Convention, or the alleged violations of the judicial guarantees and judicial protection of Wong Ho Wing in the context of this matter. 11. The Court notes that the information submitted by the parties does not show that there has been any change in the situation of uncertainty regarding the possibility of extraditing Wong Ho Wing that justified maintaining these provisional measures (supra considering paragraph 5). Moreover, the Court notes that, according to Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention, three months after the issue of the Merits Report, the Inter-American Commission is empowered to determine whether it submits the case related to these provisional measures to the Court or continues to consider it and to prepare a final report that it may publish. 15 Consequently, to avoid inhibiting compliance with an eventual determination by the organs of the interAmerican system, and taking into account also the absence of objection by the State to the extension of the validity of these measures on this occasion (supra considering paragraphs 7 and 9), the Court finds it admissible to renew these measures until March 31, 2014. 12. The Court also recalls its previous considerations in this matter concerning the significance of the mechanism of extradition and the duty of the States to collaborate in this regard. It is in the interests of the community of nations that individuals who have been accused of certain crimes can be brought to justice. Thus, the international human rights obligations of the States and the requirements of due process of law must be observed in extradition procedures, while this legal mechanism cannot be used as a path to impunity. 16 13 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, thirty-first considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May22,l 2013, fifteenth considering paragraph. 14 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, de 2010, considering seventh paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, thirty-third considering paragraph. 15 Article 50 of the Convention establishes that: “[i]f 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.” While 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 State 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.” Also, Article 61(1) stipulates that: “[o]nly 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 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. Series C No. 172, para. 39. 16 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, de 2010, sixteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May22, 2013, twenty-third considering paragraph. 5