10 order to guarantee the useful effect of the eventual decision that had to be adopted. 15 Similarly, under the universal system and under the European system for the protection of human rights, other organs of international law have ordered provisional or interim measures in cases of extradition that involve, inter alia, the possibility of imposing the death penalty or a risk for personal integrity, owing to their eminently preventive function to prevent possible human rights violations,16 to preserve the purpose of the litigation, and the procedural equality between the parties.17 Moreover, the International Court of Justice has ordered provisional measures to prevent the imposition of the death penalty in cases it has been examining until it has handed down the final decision.18 12. In this matter, the situation of extreme gravity 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 system. 13. Regarding the requisite of urgency, the Court observes that, on January 27, 2010, the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru decided to declare that the extradition of Mr. 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 and composed of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs19 (supra having seen paragraphs 10(d) and 11(a)). Thus, Mr. Wing could be extradited at any time. 15 Cf. Hilaire, Benjamin, Constantine et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment of June 21, 2002, para. 148; Case of Raxcacó et al. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, sixth and seventh considering paragraphs; Case of Raxcacó et al. Provisional measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2007, thirteenth considering paragraph, and Case of Boyce et al. Provisional measures with regard to Barbados. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2004, tenth considering paragraph. 16 Cf. U.N. Human Rights Committee, inter alia, Tolipkhuzhaev v. Uzbekistan, Communication No.1280/2004, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/96/D/1280/2004, 22 July 2009, para. 6.4; Idiev v. Tajikistan. Communication No. 1276/2004, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/95/D/1276/2004, 31 March 2009, para. 7.4, and Piandiong, Morallos and Bulan v. Philippines. Communication No. 869/1999, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/70/D/869/1999, 19 October 2000, para. 5.4. See also, European Court of Human Rights, inter alia, Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, supra note 8, para. 123, and Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], Applications nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, Judgment of 4 February 2005, paras. 108 to 127. 17 Cf. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, supra note 16, paras. 102 and 108, and U.N. Human Rights Committee, Case of Tolipkhuzhaev v. Uzbekistan, supra note 16, para. 6.2. 18 Cf. International Court of Justice, Case concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America). Order of 9 April 1998 (Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures), para. 41.I; LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America). Order of 3 March 1999 (Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures), para. 29.I.a; and Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America). Order of 5 February 2003 (Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures), para. 59.I.a. 19 Code of Criminal Procedure of Peru. Article 514. Authorities who intervene. Cf. Brief of March 8, 2010, with the State’s observations (File of request for provisional measures, folio 141).