- 89 the remedies filed were ineffective. To determine this, the Court must examine the arguments and the processing of each of these remedies. 282. The arguments of the Commission and the representative include specific allegations about the release requests of October 5 and 18, 2011 (supra para. 104), as well as about the applications for habeas corpus filed on February 9, 2010, November 16, 2011, March 13, 2012, and April 26, 2013 (supra paras. 79, 88, 108 and 109). The Court will now examine the effectiveness of each of these requests and remedies. It will not examine the first two applications for habeas corpus that were filed, or the other release requests the effectiveness of which has not been questioned. D.2.a) Habeas corpus of February 9, 2010 283. The Court notes that the application of February 9, 2010, was the third application for habeas corpus filed on behalf of Wong Ho Wing, and it was finally decided by the appeal based on constitutional injury admitted by the Constitutional Court on May 24, 2011 (supra paras. 79 and 81 to 83). In this regard, the Court notes that the alleged ineffectiveness of this application for habeas corpus refers to the supposed lack of effectiveness of the appeal based on constitutional injury, owing to the alleged failure to comply with the Constitutional Court’s decision of May 24, 2011. These arguments have already been analyzed in the preceding section (supra paras. 260 to 263). Moreover, the Court reiterates that the Constitutional Court did not order Wong Ho Wing’s release (supra para. 262). D.2.b) Release request of October 5, 2011 284. The representative filed this request before the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and, on October 10, 2011, the Chamber declared that the request should be “filed […] before the corresponding court” (supra para. 104). The representative argued that this answer “mean[t] that the Peruvian State did not guarantee a simple and prompt remedy, in the terms of Article 25(1) of the Convention” (supra para. 277). In this regard, the Court notes that, although it is true that States must make adequate and effective remedies available to the persons under its jurisdiction, the presumed victims have the obligation to file such remedies or requests in keeping with the laws in force and before the authority with competence to decide them.358 The representative has not argued that the Permanent Criminal Chamber was the competent court to decide this request. To the contrary, the evidence reveals that, following the decision of October 10, 2011, he filed another release request before the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao (supra para. 104). D.2.c) Release request of October 18, 2011, and habeas corpus of November 16, 2011 285. The Court notes that the request of October 18, 2011, was filed before the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao (supra para. 104). The representative based his request on the Constitutional Court’s order to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing. In this regard, he indicated that “[j]udgments delivered by the constitutional judges have prevalence over those of the other courts and must be executed on pain of incurring responsibility. Thus, the judgment that orders [the State …] to refrain from extraditing [Wong Ho Wing] requires immediate execution.” Therefore, he indicated that, following the decision of the Constitutional Court, “there is no legal pretext or 358 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 67, and Case of Brewer Carías v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections. Judgment of May 26, 2014. Series C No. 278, para. 87.