85 2.3.3 Analysis of the state authorities’ actions between the time the Constitutional Court delivered its May 24, 2011 ruling and its noncompliance to this day 279. As indicated under the facts established, subsequent to the January 27, 2010 issuance of the new advisory resolution, on February 9, 2010 Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s defense counsel filed another petition of habeas corpus. In this petition, Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s counsel repeated the contextual arguments concerning the risk to Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s life and the integrity of his person, and the absence of any information on the real prospects for Peru to monitor the sentence imposed. His defense counsel provided a number of reports prepared by international organizations to support his arguments. However, this petition was also denied. With that, Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s counsel filed a constitutional remedy that led to the Constitutional Court’s May 24, 2011 ruling, described in detail in the section on established facts. 280. According to the information of the file, in its ruling the Constitutional Court ordered the Executive Branch to abstain from extraditing Mr. Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China because the necessary assurances sufficient to protect his right to life were lacking. In the reasoning of its decision, the Constitutional Court made reference to the context-related information. This was the first time that a State authority took the context in the People’s Republic of China into consideration. 281. As for the scope of the right to judicial protection, in Article 25(2) the American Convention makes reference to the enforcement of judicial decisions as a component of that right. Recently, in the case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina, the Court synthesized the rules that apply to enforcement of court rulings and it went to particular pains to probe the link between effective mechanisms to ensure the substantive right that the court ruling sought to protect and the enforcement of that ruling. In the Court’s words: (…) under the terms of Article 25 of the Convention, it is possible to identify two specific responsibilities of the State. The first is that States have the obligation to incorporate in their legislation and ensure due application of effective remedies before the competent authorities, which protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or which lead to the determination of the latter’s rights and obligations. The second is that States must provide effective mechanisms to ensure that the decisions or judgments delivered by 235 such competent authorities are executed so that the declared or recognized rights are protected effectively. The process should lead to the materialization of the protection of the 236 right recognized in the judicial ruling, through proper enforcement of this ruling. Therefore, “the full effectiveness of judgments depends on their implementation,” since a judgment which has enforceable authority gives rise to certainty as to the right or dispute under discussion in the particular case, and therefore its binding force is one of the effects thereof. The contrary would 237 imply the denial of this right. 235 Furlan. 209. Citing. Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 65 and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 142. 236 Furlan 209. Citing. Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 75. 237 Furlan 209. Citing Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 104, Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Jurisdiction, para. 82, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et. al (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, para. 72.