6. 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 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 7. This Court emphasizes that, in this matter, the preventive aspect of the measures seeks to avoid non-compliance with an eventual decision by the organs of the interAmerican system and, in this way, to prevent “irreversible [damage to] the right to petition established in Article 44 of the American Convention,” especially considering that, in this matter, the proposed beneficiary would be extradited to a State beyond the scope of the protection of the inter-American human rights system. 12 8. Bearing in mind the preventive aspect indicated in the Order of May 22, 2013, this Court found it pertinent and opportune to order the adoption of provisional measures in this matter until August 30, 2013, “in order to allow the Inter-American Commission to examine and rule on case No. 12,794.” In this regard, the Court notes that, on July 18, 2013, the Inter-American Commission adopted Merits Report No. 78/13 with regard to case No. 12,794, related to these provisional measures (supra having seen paragraph 7). According to the information submitted, in this report, the Commission made four recommendations to the State and, “[p]ursuant to the procedure established in Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention,” forwarded the Merits Report to the State and asked it to present information on compliance with these recommendations within two months. 9. Based on the above, the Commission requested “a further extension [of the provisional measures] until it was able to provide information on the Peruvian State’s response as regards compliance with the recommendations.” In this regard, the State indicated that it “had until September 30, 2013,” to provide information on compliance with the recommendations made in the Merits Report, so that “it was reasonable that the InterAmerican Court would not be advised of this party’s position in relation to compliance with the recommendations of the Commission until September 30, 2012.” 10. In a previous brief (supra having seen paragraph 6), the State had forwarded information on “similar facts to those of [this matter], in which the People’s Republic of China had guaranteed the right to life and to personal integrity of Chinese citizens repatriated for similar offenses to those of which Wong Ho Wing is accused.” Notwithstanding subsequent 2013, twentieth considering paragraph. 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, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May22, 2013, fifth considering paragraph. 11 Cf. 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, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May22, 2013, fifth considering paragraph. 12 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, de 2010, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, fortieth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May22, 2013, sixth considering paragraph. 4