extraditing an individual who 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 Subsequently, 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 need to avoid irreparable damage [were] applicable to the […] situation of the proposed beneficiary” at that time.4 On both occasions, 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.”5 5. The Court has indicated that provisional measures have two aspects: one preventive and the other protective.6 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 to the extent that they seek to avoid irreparable harm to persons.7 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 inter-American system and, in this way, to prevent “irreversible [harm 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. 7. Bearing in mind the said preventive aspect, in the Order of June 26, 2012, this Court considered it pertinent and opportune to order the adoption of provisional measures in this matter until December 14, 2012 “so that the Inter-American Commission can fulfill its mandate under the Convention, considering that the proceedings on case No. 12,794 are at the merits stage and that the Commission has Court of October 10, 2011, fifth considering paragraph, Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, forty-first considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the acting President of the Court of December 6, 2012, fourth considering paragraph. 3 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth considering paragraphs and first operative paragraph. 4 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, thirty-eighth considering paragraph. 5 Matter of Wong Ho Wing. 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. 6 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. Order of the acting President of the Court of December 6, 2012, fifth considering 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; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of March 4, 2011, tenth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, twelfth considering paragraph, Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of June 26, 2011, thirty-ninth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of December 6, 2012, fifth considering paragraph 3