- 72 220. This delay in the final settlement of the extradition process, which can be attributed to the actions of the State authorities, must be examined together with the fourth and last element for determining the reasonable time analyzed below. B.2.d) Effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings 221. The Court recalls that, in order to determine whether the time is reasonable, it is necessary to take into account the effects caused by the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of the person concerned, considering, among other aspects, the matter that is the purpose of the dispute. Thus, this Court has established that, if the passage of time has a relevant impact on the legal situation of the individual, the proceedings must be advanced with greater diligence so that the case is decided rapidly.304 222. The Court observes that the extradition process has lasted more than six and a half years and that, during this lapse, Wong Ho Wing has been deprived of his liberty (five and a half years in a detention center and one year under house arrest). In addition, the situation of uncertainty in which the presumed victim has been kept as regards his possible extradition to China should be mentioned. Despite this, throughout the extradition proceeding, the State has paid little or no attention to the effects on Wong Ho Wing of the delay in the final decision, and did not consider the possibility of tempering the impact of the duration of the proceedings on his individual rights until March 10, 2014, when house arrest was granted. In this regard, it should be emphasized that proceedings in which an individual is held in preventive detention should be held as rapidly as possible (infra para. 268). However, the Court does not find that this consideration has been taken into account in the processing of this extradition request. B.2.e) Conclusion concerning a reasonable time 223. The extradition proceedings against Wong Ho Wing have lasted more than six years and have not yet concluded. Once the Executive Branch has issued its decision, it can still be appealed (supra para. 205), which would add more time to the duration of the extradition process. The Court stresses that the extradition process represents a very preliminary stage in the possible criminal proceedings to which Wong Ho Wing may be subject and, more than six years have been invested in this stage alone, without it having concluded. Having analyzed the four elements to determine whether the time is reasonable (supra para. 209), the Inter-American Court concludes that the State authorities have not acted with due diligence and respecting the obligation of promptness required by Wong Ho Wing’s detention, and the extradition process has therefore exceeded a reasonable time, which violates the right to the guarantees established in Article 8(1), in relation to Article 1 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Wong Ho Wing. B.3) Other guarantees of due process (right to be heard and right to a defense) B.3.a) Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 224. The Commission indicated that “the legal framework does not reveal any form of participation or defense for the requested person or his legal representative at the decision-making stage before the Executive Branch.” The Commission considered that Peru had “failed to meet its burden of proof” as regards the presumed victim’s arguments in relation to the impossibility of accessing the complete file of the extradition request. In this regard, it indicated that the State had not provided the complete file of the extradition process or of the different remedies it had filed in the domestic sphere, and had not submitted documentation indicating that it had made available to Wong Ho 304 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 155, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 196.