on petition P-366-09.” Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that the acting President for this matter convened a public hearing in order to receive the arguments of the parties on the pertinence of maintaining the provisional measures and on the request to extend them made by the Inter-American Commission.4 Consequently, in this order, the Court will not deal with the arguments of the parties that exceed the purpose defined opportunely or that are related to the merits of the dispute. 10. The Court reiterates that, regarding the preventive aspect, the object and purpose of these measures is to preserve the rights that are possibly at risk until the dispute is resolved. Their object and purpose are to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on merits and, thus, avoid harm to the rights in litigation, a situation that could impair or annul the usefulness of the final decision. Regarding the protective nature of the 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.5 11. In relation to the argument presented by Peru that the Court failed to found its decision to adopt these measures and did not provide grounds for the existence of the requirements established in the Convention, the Inter-American Court observes that this is merely a disagreement of the State with what was opportunely decided. Indeed, when adopting the provisional measures, the Court reasoned that the requirement of extreme gravity was present in this case, both in the preventive dimension and in the protective dimension of the measures. Thus, the adoption of these measures: is based, in its protective and preventive dimension, on the rights involved; fundamentally, the right to life, embodied in Article 4 of the American Convention, owing to the risk arising from the possible application of the death penalty in the requesting State, when it has been denounced that the extradition process has not respected international law, particularly the judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention; as well as the possible harm of the right to petition established in Article 44 thereof. Indeed, the Court finds that the requisite of extreme gravity is satisfied in this matter with the determination prima facie of the inherent risk of extraditing anyone who alleges possible flaws in due process, when the said extradition may lead to the application of the death penalty in a State outside the inter-American system6. 12. Similarly, regarding the requirement provisional measures, the Court indicated that: of urgency, when adopting these On January 27, 2010, the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru decided to declare that the extradition of [Wong Ho] Wing was admissible. Following this decision, the extradition process is in its final stage and the only matter pending, apart from possible appeals, is the decision of the Government, by means of a supreme decision issued with the agreement of the Council of Ministers, following the report of the Official Commission presided by the Ministry of Justice 4 Cf. Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to the Republic of Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2010, first operative paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of Aragua Detention Center “Tocorón Prison.” Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2010, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to México. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2010, fifth considering paragraph. 6 Matter of Wong Ho Wing, Provisional measures with regard to the Republic of Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights de May 28, 2010, twelfth considering paragraph. 5