measures is related to the framework of the International contentious realm. In this sense, the measures are aimed at preserving those rights that are in a state of possible risk until the controversy is resolved in order to assure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits, and in this way avoid harm to the rights under litigation, a situation which could render the effect utile of the decision meaningless. In regard to the protective nature of provisional measures, become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature, as they protect human rights, in so much as they seek to avoid irreparable harm to persons. 10 11. Until now the purpose of these measures has been to prevent the extradition of Mr. Wong Ho Wing, as a precautionary measure, to prevent any problems with the fulfillment of a possible decision by the Inter-American system and as a protective measure, to protect the right to life and personal integrity of Mr. Wong Ho Wing, who risks being extradited and subsequently prosecuted for a crime that could entail the death penalty. The requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the necessity of avoiding irreparable harm 11 have been satisfied in the context of these measures by the fact that the extradition of Mr. Wong Ho Wing is in its final stage, 12 and thus it corresponds to the Executive Branch to issue a final decision on the request for extradition to a State that is outside the scope of the protection offered by the Inter-American System, where the beneficiary is being prosecuted for a crime which could entail the death penalty. The request of the representative of the beneficiary seeks to modify the purpose of these measures so as to protect, through the implementation of the provisional measures, the liberty and physical integrity of the beneficiary, ordering his "immediate release." Therefore, the Court finds that the representative’s request does in fact constitute a broadening of the subject matter of the present measures. 12. The Court notes that this case is currently being heard by this Court. To date, the brief submitting the case and the Report on the Merits have been filed by the Commission, as well as the brief containing pleadings and motions by the representative. The Court awaits the submission of the answer brief from the State. 13. In its Report on the Merits to this case, the Commission concluded that there had been “an excessive delay in the deprivation of liberty of the [alleged] victim, [who has been detained for five years] in violation of Article 7(5)” of the Convention. Pursuant to the Commission, since the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal in 2011, “there is a definitive judicial order that is not advisory in nature” to not extradite Mr. Wong Ho Wing. It noted that a final decision by the Executive Branch has left the alleged victim in a state of “legal limbo,” in violation of Article 7(3) of the Convention and that “the absence of a period expressly provided for the provisional arrest with likelihood of extradition” is incompatible 10 Cf. Case of Newspaper “La Nación”. Provisional measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, Considering clause 4, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, Considering clause 8. 11 Regarding these three requirements, the Court noted that: gravity, for purposes of the adoption of provisional measures, must be “extreme,” that is that it be at its highest or most intense level; the urgent nature implies that the risk or threat involved is imminent, which requires the answer be immediate, and lastly, in regard to the damage, there must be a reasonable probability that it materialize and it must not fall on legal interests that can be repaired. Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Internment Center (“La Pica”), Yare I y Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center (Yare prison), Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison), and El Rodeo I and El rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 24, 2009, Considering clause 3; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Provisional measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of April 15, 2010, Considering clause 8, and Case of the Caracazo. Request for provisional measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, Considering clause 6. 12 After the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru issued two advisory orders ruling in favor of Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition. 5