understanding that this case does not have the characteristics that constitute a violation of the rights recognized in the Convention […], because, to the contrary, the Commission would have issued a merits report some time ago.” It underscored that the Commission had not been direct and positive when affirming that, “in principle,” it would examine this case in its next session, “so that it is evident that this will not necessarily happen.” In addition, it recalled that “it is not the first time that the Court issues a provisional measure in the expectation that the Commission will issue its merits report in the case of Wong Ho Wing without this having occurred.” 14. Regarding the information presented by the Commission and the State, this Court observes that case No. 12,794 continues at the merits stage before the Commission and, “in principle,” it will be submitted to the consideration of this organ at its next regular session to be held from March 7 to 22 this year. The Court also takes note of the information provided by the State, that a new judicial remedy had been filed, this time “an anti-constitutionality appeal with regard to the interpretation of the judgment that decided the habeas corpus in favor of Wong Ho Wing” (supra considering paragraph 11), in order to obtain an interpretation from the Constitutional Court on its own decision in relation to the possibility of extraditing the beneficiary to the People’s Republic of China. Based on the foregoing, the Court observes that the situation of uncertainty remains as regards the possibility of extraditing Wong Ho Wing that justified the granting of these provisional measures in June 2012. The information provided by the parties does not reveal any element that changes the circumstances that, at that time, justified the adoption of these provisional measures, which are still in force in this matter. 15. Even though the State indicated that it “has been complying strictly” with the decision of the Constitutional Court that ordered the State to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing (supra considering paragraph 11), the Court observes that Peru remains unclear about how to execute this judgment because, according to the State, a possible interpretation would be that the extradition is admissible since “the prohibition should only be understood in relation to the offenses for which he could be sentenced to death.” The Court recalls that, in its Order of June 26, 2012, it found that “given the uncertainty of the State with regard to the possibility of extradition […],” the considerations of the Court in its Order of May 28, 2010, regarding the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage, were “applicable to the actual situation of the […] beneficiary.”12 16. Taking into account the preceding considerations, the Court finds that the circumstances that justified the granting of these provisional measures in June 2012 remain in force. Consequently, the Court considers it in order to ratify and expand the decision of the acting President of December 6, 2012, in order to extend the validity of the provisional measures until June 1, 2013, so that the Inter-American Commission can comply with its mandate under the Convention and conclude the examination of case No. 12,794, in the understanding that it is at the merits stage and that the Commission will be analyzing its merits very shortly. 17. The Court recalls that, in its Order of June 26, 2012, it indicated that “it was opportune that the Inter-American Commission decide case No. 12,794 before that organ promptly.” However, the Court observes that the processing of this case before 12 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, thirty-eighth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth considering paragraphs. 6