33. As this Court indicated in its Order of May 2010, 13 in response to a request for provisional measures, the Court must consider only the procedural obligations of the State as a party to the American Convention; accordingly, the Court is not competent to rule on the compatibility of the extradition procedure with the Convention or the alleged violations of the judicial guarantees and protection of Wong Ho Wing. These aspects, including the analysis of the guarantees that have been given to Peru that the death penalty will not be applied if Wong Ho Wing is extradited to China, are related to compliance with the obligation to protect and ensure life. The same can be said of the determination of facts, assessment of the evidence and decision on merits concerning the application of the said legislative amendment to this specific case. These arguments can be debated by the petitioners and the State before the Inter-American Commission, in accordance with the rules established in the Convention and in the Rules of Procedure of the said organ. 34. In addition, regarding compliance with the requirements for granting the requested provisional measures, the Court recalls that, when it adopted the provisional measures in this matter, it reasoned that the requirement of extreme gravity existed in this case, in both the preventive and the protective dimensions of the measures. Thus, the adoption of these measures was: Based, in its protective and preventive dimensions, on the rights involved; fundamentally, the right to life, embodied in Article 4 of the American Convention, owing to the risk arising from the possible application of the death penalty in the requesting State, when it has been denounced that the extradition procedure has not respected international law, particularly the judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention; as well as the possible harm of the right to petition established in Article 44 thereof. Indeed, the Court finds that the requisite of extreme gravity is satisfied in this matter with the determination prima facie of the inherent risk of extraditing anyone who alleges possible flaws in due process, when the said extradition may lead to the application of the death penalty in a State outside the inter-American system. 14 35. Similarly, with regard to the requirement of urgency, when adopting these provisional measures, the Court maintained that: On January 27, 2010, the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru decided to declare the extradition of [Wong Ho] Wing admissible. Following this decision, the extradition process is in its final stage and the only matter pending, apart from possible appeals, is the decision of the Government, by means of a supreme decision issued with the agreement of the Council of Ministers, following the report of the Official Commission presided by the Ministry of Justice and composed of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs […]. Consequently, the possible extradition of [Wong Ho] Wing could occur at any moment. 15 definido., ninth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of March 4, 2011, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., fourteenth considering paragraph. 13 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of March 4, 2011, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., fourteenth considering paragraph. 14 Matter of Wong Ho Wing, Request for provisional measures with regard to the Republic of Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, twelfth considering paragraph. 15 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., thirteenth considering paragraph. 12