4 jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature, because they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable harm to the beneficiary.3 13. In its order of March 4, 2011, the Court granted an extension so that the State could “complete and deliver to the Court the information that was pending, [including] official copies with their certified translation of the definitions in the Penal Code, together with the respective updated sanctions, of the offenses of tax evasion and bribery for which the Peruvian Supreme Court of Justice has considered the extradition of Wong Ho Wing admissible.”4 14. The Court assesses positively the information and documentation forwarded by the State (supra second having seen paragraph) concerning the alleged changes in the law that have taken place in the People’s Republic of China (supra eighth considering paragraph). However, the Court does not have an official text that reflects the possible annulment of the death penalty for the offense of commodity smuggling in China. Indeed, the Court has not received an official copy of the Eighth Amendment of the Chinese Penal Code that was supposedly approved on February 25, 2011, by the People’s National Assembly of China, but merely a copy, in Chinese and in Spanish, of the articles of the said Penal Code, as they were drafted before the reform, and with the parts of the articles supposedly derogated underlined in the text, with the indication that “the content underlined has been derogated in the new Amendment to the Chinese Penal Code” in brackets. In addition, the Court does not have enough information on the entry intro force of the said reform, whether it would be applicable to this case, or the possible specific effects with regard to Wong Ho Wing. Peru merely reaffirmed the guarantee given to it by the People’s Republic of China, that the death penalty would not be applied to Wong Ho Wing if he received a final criminal judgment convicting him. 15. Additionally, the Court finds that, from the information forwarded by the parties, it is not evident that there has been a change in the circumstances that, at one time, justified the adoption of these provisional measures, which continue in force in this matter. 16. Moreover, to enable the Inter-American Commission to comply with its convention-based mandate, and considering that the proceedings relating to petition P366-09 are at the merits stage and that the Commission anticipates issuing the corresponding report this year,5 the Court finds it pertinent to order that these provisional measures should remain in force until December 15, 2011, as established its orders of May 28, 2010, and March 4, 2011. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that, if, when this time limit expires, the Commission has not reached a decision on the merits of the case, it can be presumed that the alleged urgency has ceased to be applicable. 17. Lastly, the Court decides not to admit the briefs, or the corresponding attachments, forwarded by the representative on April 27, 2011 (supra third having seen paragraph), and by the State on May 27, 30 and 31, 2011 (supra fifth having seen paragraph), because the Court had not requested the first brief, and because the 3 Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to the Republic of Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 4, 2011, tenth considering paragraph. 4 Case of Wong Ho Wing, supra note 3, seventeenth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of Wong Ho Wing, supra note 3, seventh and fifteenth considering paragraphs.