6. The brief of October 18, 2013, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) forwarded the information requested by the Court (supra having seen clause 5) and advised that “it [had] not received the relevant information indicat[ing] progress” in the compliance with the Merits Report No. 78/13, with regard to case No. 12,794, relating to these provisional measures. 7. The brief of November 29, 2013, and its annexes, in which the State submitted its observations regarding the information presented by the Inter-American Commission. 8. The brief of October 30, 2013, in which the Inter-American Commission submitted to this Court the case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru (12,794), related to the present provisional measures. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) on June 28, 1978 and, in accordance with Article 62 thereof, acknowledged the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that in “cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters not yet submitted to its consideration, order the provisional measures that it deems pertinent at the request of the Commission.” This provision is, in turn, regulated in Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 3. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that, for the Court to be able to order provisional measures, three conditions must concur: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency” and (iii) that the purpose is to “avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court is asked to intervene. In the same way, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them has ceased to be valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered. 1 4. The Court recalls that these provisional measures were first granted on May 28, 2010, at the request of the Inter-American Commission in the context of petition P-366-09 2, in view of the prima facie risk inherent in extraditing an individual who had alleged possible defects of due process, when the said extradition could lead to the application of the death penalty in a State outside the inter-American system. 3 The measures were lifted on October 10, 2011, after the Constitutional Court, on May 24, 2011, ordered the Executive Branch to abstain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing. Subsequently, the Commission again requested 1 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering clause 14, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013, Considering clause 3. 2 The petition was declared admissible on November 1, 2010. Cf. Report on Admissibility No. 151/10, Case of Wong Ho Wing Vs. Perú, November 1, 2010 (case file of the proceeding on provisional measures, Tome II, folios 620 to 631). 3 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, Considering clauses 12, 13, 15 and operative paragraph 1, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013, Considering clause 4. 2