B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 36. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a petition to be admissible before the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention the domestic remedies must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow domestic authorities to learn about the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to have the opportunity to resolve it before it is heard by an international body. 37. This petition claims that rights protected in the American Convention have been violated due to the alleged irregular actions of the Peruvian Judicial Branch when declaring that the constitutional and legal requirements for the extradition of Mr. Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China had been met. Peru maintained that the petition did not satisfy the requirement provided in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention because the habeas corpus action filed on February 9, 2010 against the President of the Republic and the Ministers of Foreign Relations and Justice has not been finally decided by the Constitutional Court. It also maintained that the extradition process has not concluded since the President of the Republic has not issued a final decision on whether to grant or deny the extradition of Mr. Wong Ho Wing to his country of origin. The State added that “the adoption of a final decision in the extradition process, which is political in nature and is the responsibility of the President and the Council of Ministers, is pending pursuant to the Resolution dated May 28, 2010 from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” 7 38. According to the information submitted by the parties, the advisory proceeding before the Judicial Branch is the only stage in which the Peruvian courts exercise legal control over an extradition request and verify the guarantees not to impose the death penalty on the extraditurus. Since the Supreme Court of Justice has already issued a final ruling in this regard, the process currently underway in the Executive Branch does not constitute a judicial remedy in the sense of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. According to the Peruvian State, this process is political in nature and is suspended until December 17, 2010 due to the provisional measures issued by the Inter-American Court on May 28, 2010. 39. The IACHR notes that the alleged victim first argued the failure to comply with the legal and constitutional requirements for admission of the extradition request throughout the advisory proceeding decided in the final instance by the Supreme Court of Justice on January 27, 2010. Secondly, he submitted two habeas corpus actions against the members of the Second Temporary Criminal Chamber and the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the aforementioned Supreme Court, pointing to alleged defects in the advisory proceeding and an alleged inadequate evaluation of the guarantees provided by the government of the People’s Republic of China agreeing not to impose the death penalty. In addition, the alleged victim filed a preventive habeas corpus action against the President of the Republic and the Council of Ministers, which has been pending a final decision from the Constitutional Court on constitutional injury since July 14, 2010. 40. Based on the foregoing considerations, the IACHR considers that the alleged victim exhausted the available remedies, according to domestic law, aiming at remedying the alleged irregularities in the advisory proceeding decided in the final instance by the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on January 27, 2010. In this respect, the requirement indicated in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention has been met. C. Deadline for submitting the petition 41. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention establishes that in order for the petition to be declared admissible it must have been submitted within a period of six months of the date when the interested party was notified of the final decision that exhausted the domestic jurisdiction. 42. As indicated above, the IACHR deemed that the alleged victim exhausted the domestic remedies through his action in the advisory proceeding before the Supreme Court of Justice 7 Communication from the State received on July 16, 2007, Summary, paragraph IV. 7