-5ii. Order an ex officio review of Wong Ho Wing’s provisional arrest. In that review the State must take into consideration his legal situation upon the conclusion of the extradition process, in accordance with the terms of the preceding recommendation. In particular, any court decision pertaining to the personal liberty of Wong Ho Wing must be made in strict compliance with the principles of exceptionality, necessity, and proportionality in the terms described in the [Merits] Report. iii. Make full reparations to Wong Ho Wing for the violations established in the Merits Report. iv. Within a reasonable period, order measures of non-repetition to ensure that, in extradition processes, the procedures established in the Code of Criminal Procedure are followed to the letter and that the necessary safeguards are in place to ensure that any diplomatic or other assurances offered by the requesting State are obtained and weighed in accordance with the standards set out in th[is] Merits Report. d) Notification of the State. The Merits Report was notified to the State on July 30, 2013, granting it two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. The State presented a report on the measures taken to comply with the said recommendations on September 30, 2013. 3. Submission to the Court. On October 30, 2013, the Commission submitted this case to the Court “in order to obtain justice for the [presumed] victim.” The Commission appointed Commissioner José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez and Executive Secretary, Emilio Álvarez Icaza, as delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán as legal advisers. 4. Requests of the Inter-American Commission. Based on the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission asked this Court to conclude and declare the international responsibility of Peru for the violations contained in its Merits Report and to order the State, as measures of reparation, to comply with the recommendations included in that report (supra para. 2). 5. Provisional measures. In the instant case, starting in May 2010, provisional measures were granted under Article 63(2) of the Convention for the State to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing until the organs of the inter-American human rights system had examined and ruled on the case (infra para. 31). II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. Notification of the State and the representative. The submission of the case was notified to the State and to the representative of the presumed victim on December 9, 2013. 7. Brief with motions, arguments and evidence. On February 5, 6 and 9, 2014, the lawyer, Luis Lamas Puccio, acting on behalf of the presumed victim (hereinafter “the representative”), presented the brief with motions, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “the motions and arguments brief”), in accordance with Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 8. Answering brief. On May 6, 2014, Peru submitted to the Court its brief with a preliminary objection, answering the Commission’s submission of the case, and with observations on the motions and arguments brief (hereinafter “the answering brief”). In this brief, the State filed a preliminary objection owing to the presumed failure to exhaust domestic remedies, described the facts, and contested all the alleged violations. 9. Observations on the preliminary objection. On June 27 and 28, 2014, the representative and the Inter-American Commission, respectively, presented their observations on the preliminary objection filed by the State.