before this Court is not a matter of provisional measures but rather one of the merits of the case pending before the Court. 16. Therefore, the Court does not consider that it is appropriate to grant, at this stage in the case, the representative’s request. 17. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, this Court notes that Mr. Wong Ho Wing has been deprived of his liberty since October 28, 2008, in a penitentiary center, given the extradition proceeding. On May 24, 2011, the Constitutional Tribunal issued a decision, in the framework of a habeas corpus proceeding, ordering the Executive Branch to refrain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing. Since then, the extradition proceeding remains pending while the Executive Branch, who has final say in the proceeding, renders its final decision. Notwithstanding, said decision has not been adopted to date, rather during this period of time, Mr. Wong Ho Wing has remained deprived of his liberty. All of this information has been provided by the State itself in the framework of the proceedings on provisional measures. 17 Likewise, in the framework of the provisional measures, the State has reported on two occasions that it provided the Judiciary with documentation regarding the temporary arrest of Mr. Wong Ho Wing in order for the “legal situation regarding deprivation of liberty to be analyzed and resolved.” 18 Similarly, in its observations regarding the representative’s request for expansion of the provisional measures, the State suggested that “other measures restricting liberty could be issued (such as house arrest)” in order to prevent a possible extradition of the beneficiary or administration of justice from being ineffective or illusory (supra Considering clause 0). Therefore, the Court considers it relevant that, in the report requested in operative paragraph two of the Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, the State must report on the results of the assessment carried out by the Judiciary regarding the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Wong Ho Wing. 18. The Court recalls that the States have the constant and permanent duty of complying with the general obligations that correspond to it under Article 1(1) of the Convention, of respecting the rights and liberties recognized in it and guaranteeing their free and full exercise to each person subject to its jurisdiction. 19 THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, In exercise of its powers established in Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Articles 27 and 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, November 25, 2005, Considering clause 6. 17 Cf. inter alia, Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 19; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013, Considering clause 5, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, Considering clause 10. 18 Cf. Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, Considering clause 6 and supra Considering clause 8. 19 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, Considering clause 3; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Provisional measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of April 15, 2010, Considering clause 22, and Case of the Caracazo. Request for Provisional measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, Considering clause 13. 7