- 74 229. The Court considers it necessary that the right to be heard is guaranteed in extradition proceedings. In this regard, expert witness Ben Saul asserted that the person must be allowed to explain the reasons why he or she should not be extradited.308 However, this does not mean that this should be guaranteed at all stages of the proceedings. In this regard, the Court notes that, in many of the States Parties to the Convention, extradition proceedings have a political stage or element.309 This circumstance or characteristic stems from the very nature of extradition processes, which constitute processes of international judicial cooperation between States. 230. Under the laws of Peru, during the judicial stage of the extradition proceedings, the stataement of the person sought is taken and the latter has the right to take part in any hearings that are held before the issue of the advisory decision of the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the person sought does not intervene at the political stage of the proceedings. Nevertheless, the Court recalls that, as argued by the parties, the discretionary actions of the Executive Branch may be subject to subsequent constitutional control (supra para. 205). 231. The Court considers that, insofar as Wong Ho Wing took part in the judicial stage of the proceedings and retains the possibility of obtaining judicial control of the final decision on extradition, the State has not failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee the presumed victim’s right to be heard. 232. Furthermore, with regard to the alleged lack of access to documentation in the case file,310 the Court notes that, since there is no obligation to allow the person sought to participate at the political stage of the extradition proceedings, there is no obligation to ensure access to the file during that stage. Regarding the subsequent information received during that stage, the Court considers that the State has an obligation to make available to anyone subject to extradition the necessary elements to exercise their right of defense or to explain their particular circumstances of risk in an adequate and effective manner. Nevertheless, in this case, the extradition process has not concluded and, as shown, the final decision is subject to subsequent judicial control. Therefore, the Court considers that, in this case, access to these elements could be ensured at that subsequent judicial stage, without the need to grant this access during the political stage of the extradition process having been proved. Regarding the alleged lack of access to documentation 308 Cf. Affidavit made by Ben Saul on August 18, 2014 (evidence file, folios 6938 and 6942). 309 The following States have a judicial stage and a political stage similar to Peru: Argentina (Law on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters, articles 22, 34 and 36, Available at http://www.infoleg.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/4000044999/41442/norma.htm); Brazil (Aliens Statute, articles 66 and 83, Available at http://www.pge.sp.gov.br/ centrodeestudos/bibliotecavirtual/dh/volume%20i/naclei6815.htm); Colombia (Code of Criminal Procedure, articles 491, 492, 501 and 503, Available at http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_0906_2004_pr012.html); Ecuador (Extradition Act, articles 13 and 14, Available at https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/sp/ecu/sp_ecu-ext-law-leyext.pdf); Mexico (Constitution of the United Mexican States, article 119, Available at http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/htm/1.htm and International Extradition Act, articles 27 and 30, Available at http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/36.pdf) and Suriname (See Extradition system framework, Available at http://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/sp/sur/index.html# últimaactualización). In the following States, the decision on extradition corresponds exclusively to the Executive Branch, although judicial remedies are established to appeal the decision: Jamaica (The Extradition Act, articles 7, 8, 11 and 12, Available at http://www.oas.org/juridico/MLA/en/jam/en_jam-ext.pdf); Panama (Judicial Code of the Republic of Panama, articles 2504, 2510 and 2512, Available at http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/mesicic3_pan_cod_judicial.pdf), and Dominican Republic (Extradition Act, article 1, Available at http://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/sp/dom/sp_dom-ext-law-489.html). 310 On July 9, 2010, the Official Commission for Extraditions and Prisoner Transfers of the Ministry of Justice issued a new report on the request for the extradition of Wong Ho Wing, as a contribution to the decision of the Executive Branch. On September 28, 2010, the representative asked the Ministry of Justice for a copy of this report, but his request was refused indicating that, pursuant to article 17 of the Law on Access to Public Information, the right to public information cannot be exercised in the case of “information prepared or obtained by legal advisers or lawyers of the entities of the Public Administration, the publication of which could reveal the strategy to be adopted in processing an administrative or judicial proceeding or in the defense. Cf. Request for copy of reasoned report of September 28, 2010 (evidence file, folio 265); report No. 34-2010-DNJ/DICAJ of September 29, 2010 (evidence file, folio 2997), and Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information No. 27806 (evidence file, folios 3014 and 3015).