3 9. The representative stated that the extradition procedure in this case did not “comply with the principle […] of double jeopardy, because it is not a case of different names for the same content of the matter typified, but of totally distinct situations, [because,] under Peruvian law, ‘evasion of taxes or customs duties’ is not an offense, but rather an administrative omission,” contrary to the case in China where it could be punished with the death penalty. In addition, he indicated that “the fact that the death penalty has been annulled under Chinese law […] does not offer any guarantee as to the way in which Wong Ho Wing would be dealt with if the provisional measures were lifted” because, “although, in the beginning, the Chinese Government offered guarantees to the Peruvian Government that it would not apply the death penalty in his case […], these guarantees were never reliable,” owing, inter alia, to the existence of “previous instances of non-compliance by Chine of guarantees offered to abstain from applying the death penalty in case of extradition.” Lastly, he stated that “it would not be surprising that […] China failed to comply with the commitments it had made to Peru, using the argument of sovereignty, because once under Chinese jurisdiction, [Wong Ho] Wing will be totally unprotected.” 10. The Inter-American Commission considered that Peru’s request to lift the provisional measures “was inadmissible, because Peru did not have sufficient information to consider that the circumstances that justified the provisional measures had changed.” The Commission observed that the translation of the supposed annulment of the death penalty for the offense of commodity smuggling was provided by the Chinese diplomatic authorities in Peru and “it is unclear if it constitutes a certified translation.” The said document “merely transcribes the respective provisions underlining those that were supposedly amended.” In this regard, the Commission observed that “the available information gives rise to a series of concerns about the relevance of the amendment to the law in […] China in relation to the specific situation of Wong Ho Wing.” On the one hand, “the available information does not directly reflect the State’s assertions in its brief and, on the other hand, irrespective of the information available, the Peruvian State has not provided basic information such as the text of the amendment, its entry into force, the duration of its application, and information on the context of the application of the death penalty in China.” B. Considerations of the Court 11. 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, merely in order “to permit the Commission […] to examine and rule on the [said] petition,” which was declared admissible in Report No. 151/10 of November 1, 2010.2 Consequently, in this order, the Court will not deal with any arguments of the parties that fall outside the duly defined purpose or which relate to the merits of the dispute. 12. The Court reiterates that, regarding the preventive aspect, the object and purpose of these measures is to preserve the rights that are possibly at risk until the dispute is resolved. Their object and purpose are to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on merits and, thus, avoid harm to the rights in litigation, a situation that could render useless or nullify the effet util of the final decision. With regard to the protective nature of the provisional measures, they represent a real 2 Admissibility Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights No. 151/10, of November 1, 2010, para. 46.