- 62 -
A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission
190. The Commission indicated that “[t]he order of Peru’s Constitutional Court […] required that it
was necessary that the final decision in the extradition process deny extradition.” However, and
even though Wong Ho Wing is still deprived of his liberty, the Executive Branch “has failed to take
a final decision in the extradition process,” abstaining from executing the judgment and actively
seeking numerous legal mechanisms to modify the scope of this ruling that protects the rights of
Wong Ho Wing. The Commission concluded that the State had failed to comply with its obligation
to implement final judicial decisions. It also argued that “the legal time frames for the advisory
procedure were not met in this case and, in addition, the absence of a legal time frame for the final
decision of the Executive Branch encouraged the delay.” Furthermore, in general, it objected to the
“disproportionate time of six years that the extradition process has lasted.” In this regard, it
affirmed that this, “of itself, violates the guarantee of a reasonable time.” It considered that “it was
not [the] complexity [of the case] or the diligence in obtaining assurances that caused the delay”
and that, “for long periods of time, the competent domestic authorities […] had failed to issue the
final decision in the extradition process.” In addition, it clarified that the remedies filed by Wong Ho
Wing formed part of the mechanisms established for his defense. Regarding the analysis of the
legal situation of the person concerned, it underscored that “the delay in the final decision in the
extradition process […] has meant that Wong Ho Wing remains deprived of his liberty.”
191. The representative emphasized that there had been a “systematic failure by the authorities of
the Executive Branch to take a final decision on the extradition of Wong Ho Wing that complied
with the ruling of the Constitutional Court ordering the Peruvian State to refrain from extraditing
him.” He argued that the State had confused the provisional nature of the measures adopted by
this Court with the final nature of the ruling of the Constitutional Court and concluded that Peru
had violated Wong Ho Wing’s right to judicial protection for the more than three years during which
it had not executed the Constitutional Court’s ruling. The representative indicated that there had
been a lack of due diligence in the adoption of a final decision by the Executive Branch. In this
regard, he argued that the Executive Branch “has been taking a series of delaying measures before
adopting a final decision,” despite the ruling of the Constitutional Court; among these, he
mentioned the request to the Supreme Court to issue a complementary advisory decision, as well
as the “request submitted to the 42nd Special Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of
Lima on November 25, 2011, that the Public Attorney responsible for the Judicial Matters of the
Ministry of Justice present some ‘clarifications’ regarding compliance with the ruling of the
Constitutional Court of May 24, 2011”.
192. The State stressed that the Constitutional Court had ordered it to refrain from extraditing
Wong Ho Wing, but had not decided on the denial of the extradition request. It noted that the
ruling of the Constitutional Court was binding for the Executive Branch, but that “legal
discrepancies or questions may exist regarding its execution.” According to the State, the requests
for clarification “in no way signify the intention to disregard a jurisdictional ruling or prevent its
execution, but their purpose was to resolve any questions that arose.” Regarding the reasonable
time, the State indicated that, “non-compliance with the reasonable time does not entail the
immediate and direct harm to the right to a reasonable time for the duration of a process.” In
relation to the complexity of the matter, it asked that the Court take into account the “absence of
case law of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights concerning the basic
diplomatic assurances that a State should request in extradition matters; the absence of domestic
case law on the constitutional control of acts of the Executive Branch in relation to extradition; the
lack of clarify in the ruling of the Constitutional Court, and the fact that the provisional measures of
the Inter-American Court were in force.” With regard to the procedural activity of the person
concerned, the State indicated that “[the applications for habeas corpus] were filed at each stage
of the extradition procedure, preventing it from going forward normally.” The State did not rule on