entail the urgent consideration of the merits of the petition. Even though the Commission has advised that it will include the analysis of the merits of this case in the program for its next period of sessions, the Court finds it pertinent to reiterate what it emphasized in its Order of February 13, 2013: that the Inter-American Commission has been analyzing the petition in this case for more than four years and two months, and more than two years and six months have elapsed since the case has been at the merits stage of the proceedings before the said organ, without the Commission having ruled on it, despite the prompt processing accorded to the case. 23 The Court underscores that the delay in the adoption of a decision by the Inter-American Commission, on the one hand, could delay the extradition procedure, which has continued for more than four years and, on the other hand, delays the failure to define the legal situation of Wong Ho Wing, who is currently deprived of liberty. 22. Taking into account the above considerations and that the Court finds that the circumstances that justified the granting of these provisional measures in June 2012 remain in force (supra considering paragraph 20), the Court considers it admissible to renew the validity of these provisional measures until August 30, 2013, so that the Inter-American Commission can comply with its mandate under the Convention and conclude the examination of case No. 12,794. However, the Court notes that, if the Commission has not reached a decision on the merits of the case when the time frame for these provisional expires, it can be presumed that the alleged urgency is no longer applicable. 23. Moreover, the Court recalls what has been said in this matter concerning the importance of the mechanism of extradition and the obligation of States to collaborate in this regard. It is in the interests of the community of nations that individuals who have been accused of certain offenses can be brought to justice. Thus, the international obligations of the States with regard to human rights and the requirements of due process of law must be observed in extradition procedures, while this legal mechanism may not be used as a way to achieve impunity. 24 24. Lastly, this Court reiterates that, while the matter is being decided by the organs of the inter-American system, Peru must continue adopting the necessary measures with regard to Wong Ho Wing so that his eventual extradition and the corresponding administration of justice in the requesting State do not become illusory of ineffective. 25 THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT DE DERECHOS HUMANOS, in exercise of its authority under Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Articles 27 and 31 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 23 The petition was lodged before the Commission on March 27, 2009, and this organ has been processing it since March 31, 2009. It was declared admissible on November 1, 2010, in Report No. 151/10. Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, having seen paragraph 9(d) and fifth considering paragraph. 24 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, sixteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, eighteenth considering paragraph. 25 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, eighteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, nineteenth considering paragraph. 9