3. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that, for the Court to be able to order provisional measures, three conditions must concur: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency” and (iii) that the purpose is to “avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court is asked to intervene. In the same way, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them is no longer valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered.1 4. The acting President recalls that these provisional measures were granted for the first time on May 28, 2010, at the request of the Commission in the context of petition P-366-09,2 in view of the prima facie danger of the risk inherent in extraditing an individual who alleged possible flaws in due process, when the said extradition could lead to the application of the death penalty in a State outside the inter-American system.3 Subsequently, on June 26, 2012, the Court once again granted these provisional measures, considering that “given the State’s uncertainty with regard to the possibility of extradition […] the Court f[ound] that the considerations [contained in its Order of May 28, 2010,] with regard to the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage [were] applicable to the […] situation of the proposed beneficiary” at that time.4 On both occasions, the Court ordered the adoption of the provisional measures only in order “to allow the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights to examine and rule on [petition P-366-09, which currently corresponds to] case No. 12,794.”5 5. With regard to their preventive aspect, provisional measures are designed to preserve the rights that are possibly at risk until the dispute has been decided. Their object and purpose are to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on merits and, in this way, to avoid harm to the rights in dispute, a situation that could nullify the practical effects of the final decision or render them useless. Regarding the protective aspect of provisional measures, they represent a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature because they protect human rights to the extent that they seek to avoid irreparable harm to persons.6 1 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of González Medina and family. Provisional measures with regard to Dominican Republic. Order of the Court of June 21, 2012, second considering paragraph. 2 The petition was declared admissible on November 1, 2010, by Report No. 151/10 and with regard to Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Personal Integrity), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and y 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of this instrument. Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the acting President of the Court of March 24, 2010, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, fifth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of November 26, 2010, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of March 4, 2011, eighth and ninth considering paragraphs; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, eleventh considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of October 10, 2011, fifth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, forty-first considering paragraph. 3 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth considering paragraphs and first operative paragraph. 4 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, thirty-eighth considering paragraph. 5 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, first operative paragraph. Also, Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, first operative paragraph. 6 Cf. Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of 2