- 63 the conduct of its judicial authorities, because it considered that this had “not been questioned” and that, “regarding the conduct of the authorities, the Commission only referred to those who were part of the Executive Branch.” Thus, it affirmed that “the ruling of the Constitutional Court […] does not result in any obligation to issue a decision rejecting the extradition.” The State also understood that the Commission’s argument on the legal situation of the person involved in the process should “be rejected,” because it was the result of its continuing confusion about the real scope of the ruling of the Constitutional Court.” It underscored that “[t]he delay in the final decision in the extradition process has been the result of the actions of [the representative] in the domestic and international, and those of the Commission.” B. Considerations of the Court 193. The Court notes that, following the second advisory decision of the Supreme Court, the representative of Wong Ho Wing filed an application for habeas corpus in view of the certain and imminent risk that the presumed victim could be extradited, using the remedies established by Peruvian law. This habeas corpus was ultimately decided in May 2011 by the Constitutional Court, by means of a constitutional appeal, when that court considered that sufficient assurances that the death penalty would not be imposed had not been provided, and therefore: (i) ordered the State to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing, and (ii) urged the State to try him in Peru (supra paras. 79 to 85). 194. Following that ruling, the State has not taken a final decision regarding the request for the extradition of Wong Ho Wing. Since then, the Executive Branch has tried different procedural channels to incorporate new information that would: (i) clarify or interest the scope of the Constitutional Court’s ruling in order to permit the extradition of Wong Ho Wing; (ii) complement the Supreme Court’s advisory decision so that it is admissible to extradite Wong Ho Wing, without infringing the literal text of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, or (iii) interpret that it is possible to extradite Wong Ho Wing for the offense of bribery that was never subject to the death penalty. 195. Taking into account the arguments of the parties and of the Commission, the Court will now examine: (B.1) the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection, and (B.2) the alleged failure to comply with the guarantee of a reasonable time in the extradition process. Subsequently, the Court will examine: (B.3) the other presumed violations of judicial guarantees alleged by the representative. B.1) The alleged violation of the right to judicial protection 196. Regarding the right to judicial protection, in the terms of Article 25 of the Convention it is possible to identify two specific State responsibilities. The first is to establish by law and to ensure the due application of effective remedies before the competent authorities that protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights or that lead to the determination of their rights and obligations.263 The second is to guarantee the means to executive the respective final decisions and judgments issued by those competent authorities, so that the declared or recognized rights are truly protected.264 The latter is required because a judgment that is res judicata grants certainty about the right or dispute discussed in the specific case and, 263 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237, and Case of the Afrodescendant Communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 405. 264 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 79, and Case of the Afrodescendant Communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, supra, para. 405.