3 defenses such as statute of limitations” and reject the Commission’s request due to its lack of one of the elements required to grant it. 10. The November 22, 2010, brief and its annex, in which the Inter-American Commission submitted a communication to the Court from Mr. Wong Ho Wing, requesting the provisional measures be broadened. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978, and, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention holds 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. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court holds, inter alia, that: 1. At any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [..] 5. The Court, or if the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, upon considering that it is possible and necessary, may require the State, the Commission, or the representatives of the beneficiaries to provide information on a request for provisional measures before deciding on the measure requested. 4. The Court recalls that these provisional measures were granted at the request of the Inter-American Commission in the context of application P-366-09. This application was declared admissible through report No. 151/10, dated November 1, 2010, with regard to Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment [Personal Integrity]), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection), of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention3. The Court takes note of the information provided by the InterAmerican Commission with regard to the status of the proceeding and the parties’ deadlines to submit information on the merits of the matter (supra Having Seen 6). 5. Likewise, the Court recalls that this case is before the Inter-American Commission and that the adoption of these provisional measures was ordered only for the purpose of “allowing the Commission to examine and rule on application P-366- 3 Report on Admissibility No. 151/10 dated November 1, 2010, para. 46.