- 91 the reasons cited by the applicant must be examined and referred to expressly, pursuant to the parameters established by the American Convention.364 289. When examining the request release, the Seventh Court failed to rule on the allegation that, following the Constitutional Court’s judgment there was no reason for the detention of Wong Ho Wing. Furthermore, it failed to rule on the reasonableness of the time that he had been detained. The same omissions can be observed in the decision on the application for habeas corpus filed on November 16, 2011. In this regard, the Court notes that the examination of a reasonable time made in this decision did not analyze whether the detention of Wong Ho Wing was still necessary and proportionate. To the contrary, this decision was based on the fact that the extradition process had not yet concluded. 290. Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that the release request of October 18, 2011, and the application for habeas corpus filed on November 16, 2011, were not effective to carry out an adequate control of the presumed victim’s detention. Consequently, the State violated Article 7(6) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Wong Ho Wing. D.2.d) Failure to comply with a reasonable time when deciding these remedies 291. The Commission and the representative argued that a reasonable time had not been respected when deciding the release request of October 18, 2011, and the applications for habeas corpus of November 16, 2011, March 13, 2012, and April 26, 2013 (supra paras. 79, 88, 104, 108 and 109). In this regard, it should be underscored that the release request of October 18, 2011, was decided on December 1, 2011 (supra paras. 107 and 286).365 The habeas corpus presented on November 16, 2011, was declared inadmissible on May 30, 2012 (supra paras. 108 and 287), and the habeas corpus presented on March 13, 2012, was still pending a decision on December 1, 2014, when the State’s last report in this regard was forwarded.366 Lastly, the habeas corpus presented on April 26, 2013, was declared inadmissible on October 24, 2014 (supra para. 109). 292. The Court recalls that, in general, it has considered the following factors to determine whether the time is reasonable: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (d) the effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings (supra para. 209). However, the State did not present any evidence or information to justify the duration of these proceedings. The Court considers that taking one month to decide a release request that, by law, should be decided in 48 hours,367 and six months or more to decide the applications for habeas corpus, is clearly excessive. 364 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, supra, para. 96. 365 During the proceeding, the judge and the representative of the presumed victim presented various requests for the Ministry of Justice to forward the provisional arrest file so that a decision could be taken; this was sent on November 25, 2011 (supra paras. 105, 106 and 286). 366 Cf. The State’s brief of December 1, 2014 (merits file, folio 1159). During this proceeding, on March 13, 2012, the application was declared “absolutely inadmissible.” The decision was subsequently revoked on December 26, 2012. On April 29, 2013, the application was declared admissible (supra note 112). On August 4, 2014, the Public Attorney’s Office presented its answering brief. Cf. Decision of the 41st Criminal Court of March 13, 2012 (evidence file, folios 8504 to 8507); Decision of the Second Special Criminal Chamber for Prisoners at Liberty of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima of December 26, 2012 (evidence file, folios 8508 to 8516), and Brief of the Public Attorney of the Judiciary of Peru of August 4, 2014 (evidence file, folio 8522). 367 In this regard, the Procedural Code in force under Legislative Decree No. 638 of April 27, 1991, establishes: “Article 184. Once the release request has been presented by the detainee, the prosecutor shall draw up the interlocutory motion within 24 hours and shall forward this to the judge, notifying the other parties to the proceedings. Article 185. The judge shall take a decision within 24 hours of receiving the interlocutory motion, shall notify the parties to the proceedings, and shall advise the prosecutor of his decision. The decision may be appealed within two working days.” Code of Criminal Procedure, promulgated by Legislative Decree No. 638 of April 27, 1991 (evidence file, folio 8624).