the bodies of the inter-American system as to the recommendations contained in the Report on the Merits. 6. On October 18, 2013, the Commission reported that “pursuant to the monitoring of compliance with the recommendations, it had not received relevant information indicating any progress,” for which it was “analyzing the available information in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the American Convention and Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure.” In response to the foregoing, the State indicated that, on September 30, 2013, it filed “its legal position with respect to the recommendations set forth in the Report on the Merits No. 78/13” with the Commission. In this regard, it provided a copy of the writing in question, whereby the State noted that “[it] disagreed with the arguments developed by the Inter-American Commission” in its Merits Report regarding those in which it declared the violations of the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection of Mr. Wong Ho Wing. Moreover, it indicated that “the extradition procedure has not ended […] since, to date, said process is in its final stage.” Consequently, it noted that “the request of the Commission [for the culmination of the extradition procedure and the review of the means of provisional arrest] [would] be evaluated by the appropriate authorities in conformance with the current Peruvian legislation” and the regular domestic proceedings. Additionally, the State informed the Court that the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights had forwarded to the Judiciary documentation related to the process of provisional arrest aimed at the extradition of Mr. Wong Ho Wing, so that “the legal situation related to [his] detention be analyzed and resolved.” 7. On October 30, 2013, the Inter-American Commission submitted this case to the jurisdiction of the Court. According to the Commission, the case involves “a sequence of violations of the rights of Mr. Wong Ho Wing, a national of the People’s Republic of China, from the time of his detention on October 27, 2008, and throughout the extradition procedure that continues to this date.” Moreover, the Commission concluded that that “in the different stages of the process of extradition, the domestic authorities have engaged in a series of omissions and irregularities in the handling of the process, the reception, and the assessment of the alleged guarantees offered by the People’s Republic of China.” According to the Commission, “in addition to due process violations of varying degrees, such omissions and irregularities constituted a breach of the duty to guarantee the right to life and personal integrity of Mr. Wong Ho Wing.” 9 8. This Court has indicated that provisional measures have two aspects: one preventive and the other protective. 10 The preventive aspect of provisional measures is related to the context of international litigations. Thus, these measures have the object and purpose of preserving the rights that are possibly at risk until the dispute is decided. Their object and purpose are to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits and, in this way, avoid harm to the rights in litigation, 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 insofar as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 11 9 Brief submitting the case by the Commission (case file on the Merits, Tome I, folio 2) 10 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” newspaper). Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, considering clause 4, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, considering clause 6. 11 Cf. Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” newspaper). Provisional measures with regard to 4