and unappealable resolution of the Constitutional Tribunal of May 24, 2011, which ordered the State of Peru not to extradite Mr. Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China.” The representative stated that the State has not adopted a final decision on Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s legal situation, “not fulfilling the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision for more than two years and eight months,” given that “the only action that the State needs to tak is that its Executive Branch render a final decision as to Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s extradition.” The representative noted that “[t]he delay in issuing a final decision by the Executive Branch, […], implies that Mr. Wong Ho Wing remain deprived of liberty for an indefinite period of time, and not only is he is losing take that will not be returned to him but his personal integrity is diminishing.” He noted that the conditions of extreme gravity and urgency, “are justified in the [O]rder of the [Court of] August 22, 2013” issued in the framework of this case. 8. The State asked that the request made by the representatives to expand the measures be dismissed. It noted that “it was inappropriate” that the representative “request that the Court […] assess and render a decision beforehand on the deprivation of liberty of [Mr. Wong Ho Wing], prior to the periods already established by the Tribunal” in its Order of January 29, 2014. Peru argued that the representative “incorrectly seeks that the [beneficiaries] immediate freedom be granted without basis to appeal on ‘the appearance of good law’”. Moreover, it argued that the representative doesn’t “consider that the assessment regarding the [requirements of extreme gravity and urgency] occurs case by case in relation to a particular matter and that in [the Order of August 22, 2013], it occurred in regard to the request to refrain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing, but not in regard to his deprivation of liberty.” In addition, it reported that “it has fulfilled its obligations providing information to the Judiciary in order for the Judiciary to render a decision, pursuant to its powers, in relation to the provisional arrest of Mr. Wong Ho Wing.” Likewise, Peru highlighted that the matters involving the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Wong Ho Wing “will be the subject of an assessment regarding matters of substance in the context of the merits of the proceeding before the Court.” Lastly, it highlighted that “annulling deprivation of liberty […] without first ordering, as well, the implementation of other measures that somehow place a restriction on liberty (such as home arrest), could […] prevent competent national authorities from effectively rendering a decision on the viability of a judgment at the domestic level and would render a possible extradition illusory.” 9. The Commission noted that “since its first request for provisional measures” in this case, it has considered that the purpose of the measures is to “preserve the purpose of this case before the Inter-American System, as well as protect the life and personal integrity of Mr. Wong Ho Wing given the threat of extradition to the People’s Republic of China.” Notwithstanding, it noted that in its Report on the Merits it highlighted “the continuity of the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Wong Ho Wing without legal basis,” despite the fact that the Constitutional Tribunal has stated the inadmissibility of the extradition in several times and has ordered the government to reject the request of the People’s Republic of China. According to the Commission, this “is particularly serious and it is an aspect of this matter that deserves to be considered by the […] Court.” C. Considerations of the Court 10. This Court has noted that the provisional measures have two aspects: one is precautionary and the other is protective. 9 The protective nature of the provisional 9 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica (Newspaper “La Nación”). Provisional measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, Considering clause 4, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, Considering clause 8. 4