5 c) The guarantees of due process recognized in the Convention have been respected at all times during the extradition process. Mr. Wong Ho Wing has made use of the mechanisms provided for under domestic Peruvian law to protect his rights. He has applied for various remedies, some of which were granted. Also, among other procedural guarantees, he has had legal defense counsel, a translator, and access to the case files. In this sense, the State highlighted that two requests for writs of habeas corpus submitted by Mr. Wong Ho Wing are still being processed. Likewise, he can appeal the denial of the third writ of habeas corpus he filed on February 9, 2010. With this, Mr. Wong Ho Wing is, with total freedom, using the constitutional protective mechanisms offered by the habeas corpus remedy before domestic courts to claim alleged violations of his rights. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978, and, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention holds that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court holds that: 1. At any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [..] 5. The Court, or if the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, upon considering that it is possible and necessary, may require the State, the Commission, or the representatives of the beneficiaries to provide information on a request for provisional measures before deciding on the measure requested. 6. If the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, in consultation with the Permanent Commission and, if possible, with the other Judges, shall call upon the State concerned to adopt such urgent measures as may be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of any provisional measures that may be ordered by the Court during its next period of sessions. […] 4. This request for provisional measures does not originate in a case before the Court. Rather, provisional measures have been requested in the framework of petition number P-366-09, being processed by the Inter-American Commission since March 31, 2009. The petition is currently in the admissibility stage. The Commission holds that it applied Article 30(4) of its Rules of Procedure then in force to the petition. The Article provides for shorter deadlines in exceptional situations.