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 The measures were lifted on October 10, 2011, after the Constitutional Court, on May 24, 2011, had ordered the Executive Branch to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing. Subsequently, the Commission again requested provisional measures, because “the State has changed its position and the Executive Branch, alleging the existence of supposed ‘new facts,’ has even asked the Supreme Court to issue a complementary advisory decision in the extradition procedure.” 4 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 the need to avoid irreparable damage [were] applicable to the […] situation of the proposed beneficiary” at that time. 5 In both May 2010 and June 2012, the Court ordered the adoption of the provisional measures only in order “to allow the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to examine and rule on [petition P-366-09, which currently corresponds to] case No. 12,794.” 6 5. The Court has indicated that provisional measures have two aspects: one preventive and the other protective. 7 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. 8 6. The 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. 9 3 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth considering paragraphs and first operative paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, fourth considering paragraph. 4 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, fourth having seen paragraph. 5 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, thirty-eighth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, fourth considering paragraph, 6 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. 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. 7 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 February 13, 2013, fifth considering paragraph. 8 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; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, fifth considering paragraph 9 Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of November 26, 2010, fortieth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional 3