the Commission does not appear to have advance for seven months. In this regard, it takes note of the State’s observation that this is not the first time that this Court has extended the validity of these provisional measures so that the Commission may issue the respective merits report. Although the Commission has advised that it will include the analysis of the merits of this case in the program of its next regular session, the Court finds it pertinent to reiterate what the acting President stressed in his Order of December 6, 2012, to the effect 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.13 The Court underscores that the delay in the adoption of a decision by the Inter-American Commission, on the one hand, delays 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. 18. 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.14 19. 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 to avoid his eventual extradition and the corresponding administration of justice in the requesting State becoming illusory of ineffective.15 THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of the attributes conferred on it by Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Articles 27 and 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, DECIDES: 1. To require the State, as established in this Order, to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing until June 1, 2013, in order to allow the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to examine and rule on Case of No. 12,794. 2. To require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to keep the Court informed about the status of case No. 12.794 before that organ and, to this end, it 13 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 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. 14 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, sixteenth considering paragraph. 15 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, eighteenth considering paragraph. 7