State, he indicated that “they had never received this new information.” He also indicated that “about 15 days previously, Wong Ho Wing had received a visit in the prison […] where he is deprived of liberty […] and was pressured by Chinese Embassy officials, who demanded that he agree to be extradited and that he waive the use of any means of defense.” Lastly, he observed that, if these measures were no longer in force, the State would “immediately extradite Wong Ho Wing and there would be no possibility of monitoring how [the extradition] would be implemented, and also, since the application of the death penalty was possible, the harm would be absolutely irreversible.” 6. The Inter-American Commission observed that “the situation that gave rise to the provisional measures has not changed and, consequently, [it] reiterate[d] all the arguments made during the proceedings before the Inter-American Court.” In addition, it indicated that, when ordering the provisional measures the Court was aware of most of the guarantees that the State referred to during the hearing and, despite this, it determined that the requirements for the adoption of measures had been met; while the analysis of the guarantees was a fundamental aspect when examining the merits of the case. In addition, it stressed that “the request was not unconditional, but rather in addition to protecting the beneficiary, it sought and continues seeking precisely to preserve the purpose of the petition and the effectiveness of an eventual decision of the organs of the inter-American system.” Regarding the elimination of the situation of urgency owing to the alleged failure to comply with the mandate issued in the order of the Court of May 28, 2010, the Commission considered “that the said order only contained a mandate for the Peruvian State,” which “consisted in abstaining from extraditing Wong Ho Wing until a specific date.” 7. In addition, the Inter-American Commission stated that the proceedings on the dispute “have been processed […] promptly, balancing this promptness with compliance with the regulatory time frames, the adversarial principle, and due process of law for the parties.” It indicated that the “petition was received and three days later was forwarded to the State; whereas, according to practice and the volume of cases before the Commission, this usually takes two to three years.” In addition, it advised that “the case is in the initial stages of the merits of the matter in which, in addition to the inherent complexity of the case, the Rules of Procedure establish different procedural scenarios, such as the request for more time by the parties, the initiation of a friendly settlement procedure, or the holding of a hearing on the merits.” In this way, “the Commission will continue processing the case as rapidly as possible and hopes to have all the substantive and procedural elements to be able to deliberate and approve a decision on the merits this year […], taking into account the remaining sessions [of this organ].” It concluded by asking the Court to maintain these provisional measures because the need persists to ensure that an eventual decision of the organs of the system will be effective and in order to avoid actions that could make the situation irreparable. 8. The Court recalls that these provisional measures were granted at the request of the Inter-American Commission in the context of petition P-366-09. This petition was declared admissible by Report No. 151/10 of November 1, 2010, with regard to Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof. In addition, the Court also recalls that the adoption of these provisional 9. measures was ordered only in order to “permit [the Commission] to examine and rule 4