-715. Supervening facts. On April 13, and June 11 and 18, 2015, the representative forwarded information on a request to “change the house arrest” of Wong Ho Wing filed in the domestic sphere on March 3, 2015. On April 20, May 4, and June 19 and 23, 2015, the State and the Commission presented their observations in this regard. 16. Deliberation of this Judgment. The Court began its deliberation of this Judgment on June 24, 2015. III JURISDICTION 17. The Court is competent to hear this case, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION A. Arguments of the State and observations of the representative and of the Commission 18. The State indicated that “the petition was presented to the [Commission] on March 27, 2009, while an application for habeas corpus filed on January 26, 2009, was being processed,” and that this application was subsequently “declared partly justified.” In addition, at that time, “the extradition was being processed” and, even at the present time, the Executive Branch has not taken a final decision. The State underlined that, according to the Admissibility Report, “the petitioner had exhausted the domestic remedies […] with the ruling [of the Supreme Court] of January 27, 2010,” as well as with the application for habeas corpus, all of them “decided following the filing of this petition.” Furthermore, it noted that, when the Admissibility Report was issued, other applications for habeas corpus were awaiting a final decision.6 19. The Commission observed that the State had filed the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies at the appropriate opportunity, during the admissibility stage. However, the Commission argued that it had analyzes the exhaustion of domestic remedies “based on the situation in force when it makes a ruling on admissibility” because, in many cases, the situation regarding compliance with the admissibility requirements changes and/or is updated. Therefore, it examined “compliance with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies […], in light of the evolution of the facts and the information available at that time.” The Commission also “took into consideration the length of time taken by the respective authorities to examine [the applications for habeas corpus] that, by their nature, should be decided promptly.” 20. The representative emphasized that “the situation that should be taken into account in order to establish whether the domestic remedies have been exhausted is the one which exists when deciding on admissibility.” Thus, he indicated that this interpretation “has entered the domain of international inter-American custom accepted and not rejected by the American States, including Peru.” The representative indicated that, when the Admissibility Report was issued, “the extradition proceedings against Wong Ho Wing had been decided in a single and final court, by the Supreme Court of Peru, and during those proceedings, a series of irregularities had occurred that violated 6 Moreover, during the public hearing, the State argued that “the main purpose of the presumed victims and their representatives” is to obtain financial compensation, and they had filed no domestic remedies in this regard using the existing mechanisms. The Court underscores that this argument was presented for the first time during the public hearing, so that it is time-barred.