- 88 “Ministry, at the appropriate moment, complied with the judge’s request and, after he had ruled on the request, he ordered that the respective file be returned to the Ministry.” Added to this, it indicated that, “on March 10, 2014, the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao, declared the release request admissible […], and therefore annulled the provisional arrest warrant and ordered the coercive measure of an order to appear in court periodically […] because the Executive Branch had not yet taken a final decision on the extradition request.” Regarding the relationship of this to the alleged violation of Articles 25(1) and 25(2)(a), Peru stressed that the representative was referring to the violation of these provisions in the sense that “the jurisdictional authorities before whom he had filed three applications for habeas corpus had not decided them favorably,” considering that “the State does not fail to comply with its obligation to administer justice […] if this does not provide a result that satisfies the petitioner’s claims.” Also, it asked the Court “to set aside the claim to […] include this in the analysis of the case, […] because [the facts described] are outside the factual framework of the case delimited by the [Commission], since the latter has not questioned the specific situation of the [habeas corpus] or other release requests […] (other than that […] of October 18, 2011).” D.2) Considerations of the Court 279. First, the Court notes that the applications for habeas corpus filed on behalf of Wong Ho Wing do form part of the factual framework of this case (supra para. 35). In this regard, the Court reiterates that the representatives of the presumed victims may allege violations that differ from those described by the Commission in its Merits Report. 280. As can be seen, with regard to the applications for habeas corpus, the Commission argued the violation of Article 7(6), while the representative also argued the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. The Court recalls that Articles 7(6) and 25 of the Convention refer to different spheres of protection. In this section, the Court will analyze whether the State gave Wong Ho Wing the possibility of appealing before a competent court “in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful,” in accordance with Article 7(6) of the Convention. Given that Article 7(6) of the Convention has its own legal content and that the principle of practical effects (effet utile) crosscuts the due protection of all the rights recognized in this instrument, the Court finds it unnecessary to examine the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention.355 281. Furthermore, the Court has established that, under Article 7(6) of the Convention, the authority that should decide of the lawfulness of the arrest or detention is a judge or court. Thus, the Convention is safeguarding the fact that control of the deprivation of liberty should be judicial.356 In addition, the Court has stated that it is not sufficient that remedies concerning the judicial control of detention exist formally in the law, but they must also be effective; that is, comply with the purpose of obtaining a prompt decision on the lawfulness of the arrest or detention.357 Thus, this Court notes that the laws of Peru establish judicial remedies to control the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty. Indeed, in this case, the representative filed four release requests and one request for a change in the provisional detention. He also filed six applications for habeas corpus. Not all of them have been decided in favor of his claims and only one of them resulted in effective control of the deprivation of liberty (in 2014, when the detention method was changed to house arrest owing to the time that had elapsed). However, this does not mean that 355 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 77, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, para. 162. 356 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 128, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 135. 357 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 97, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 135.