6. The acting President emphasizes that, in this 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 [harm to] the right to petition established in Article 44 of the American Convention,” especially considering 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. 7. The acting President recalls that, in its Order of June 26, 2012, the Court considered it “opportune that the Inter-American Commission decide case No. 12,794 before that organ promptly, taking into account the said preventive aspect, […] as well as the State’s observations with regard to the certainty required by the entities intervening in the procedure to extradite Wong Ho Wing.”7 In addition, when analyzing the appropriateness of granting the said measures, the Court took into consideration “that the proceedings relating to Case No. 12,794 [were] at the merits stage and that the Inter-American Commission [had] advised that, on March 26, 2012, a public hearing would be 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 8. Despite the foregoing, the acting President observes that, in the course of the nearly six months that have elapsed since the adoption of the said measures, the Inter-American Commission has not advised the Court that it has adopted the said merits report, and has not presented any information on the current status of the said case before this organ. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the State has not forwarded any information either, or raised any objection to the continuation of the measures granted in favor of the beneficiary. Therefore, the acting President understands that the circumstances that, at the time, justified the adoption of these provisional measures have not changed. 9. For the Court to have the necessary information to make an adequate assessment of the need to maintain these measures, as well as for the Inter-American Commission to comply with its mandate under the Convention, the acting President finds it pertinent to extend these provisional measures until March 1, 2013, so as to allow the Commission to examine Case No. 12,794, and the Court in plenary to consider and deliberate on the need to maintain these measures during its ninetyeighth regular session to be held at the seat of the Court from February 4 to 16, 2013. During this extension of these measures, the State must abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing. 10. Notwithstanding the above, the acting President considers it necessary to mention that the Inter-American Commission has been analyzing the petition in this case for more than three years and eight months, and more than two years have elapsed since the case has been at the merits stage of the proceedings before the said organ, without the Inter-American Commission having ruled on it, despite the prompt processing accorded to the case.9 The Court underscores that the delay in the adoption the Court of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of March 4, 2011, tenth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, twelfth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of June 26, 2011, thirtyninth considering paragraph. 7 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, forty-first considering paragraph. 8 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, forty-second considering paragraph. 9 The petition was lodged before the Inter-American Commission on March 27, 2009. The Commission has been processing it since March 31, 2009, and declared it admissible on November 1, 2010, by Report 3