5. The brief of October 30, 2013, wherein the Inter-American Commission submitted the case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru (12.794) before this Court, related to these provisional measures. 6. The brief of February 6, 2014, wherein the representative of Mr. Wong Ho Wing (hereinafter “the representative”) filed a brief of pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “the brief of pleadings and motions”) in the framework of the contentious proceeding in this case. In said brief, the representative requested that these provisional measures be expanded to order the State “to grant the immediate liberty of Mr. Wong Ho Wing while a decision by the Executive Branch of Peru and before the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is pending.” 7. The brief of March 12 and 19, 2014, wherein the State and the Commission, respectively, provided their observations to the request to expand the provisional measures requested by the representative. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) on July 28, 1978, and pursuant to Article 62, acknowledged the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration.�� This provision is regulated by Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 3. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that for the Court to order the adoption of provisional measures, three conditions must be present: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency,” and iii) necessity of avoiding irreparable harm to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in all the situations in which the intervention of the Tribunal is requested. Similarly, the three conditions must continue to exist in order for the Court to maintain the protection. 1 4. In order to determine if the request made by the representative (supra Having Seen clause 6) is admissible, the Court will assess (A) the background of these provisional measures and (B) the arguments of the parties and of the Commission, and then render its (C) consideration on the matter. A. Background of these provisional measures 5. The Court recalls that these provisional measures were ordered for the first time in May 2010 2. The measures were lifted in October 2011, once the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru ordered the Executive Branch to refrain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing on May 24 of that year. Notwithstanding, on June 26, 2012, this Court once again ordered these provisional measures given the “uncertainty of the State” as to the possibility of extraditing 1 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering clause 24, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, Considering clause 3. 2 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, considering clause 12, 13, 15, and operative paragraph 1. 2