- 67 - 206. Based on the preceding conclusions, the Court finds that, in the actual circumstances of this case, it is not in order to issue a ruling on the alleged failure to comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court. B.2) Reasonable time of the extradition process 207. Regarding the guarantee of a reasonable time, Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[e]very person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 208. In principle, the jurisdictional function belongs preeminently to the Judiciary, notwithstanding the fact that other public authorities or bodies may exercise jurisdictional functions in certain specific situations. In other words, when the Convention refers to the right of every person to a hearing by “a competent tribunal” “for the determination of his rights,” this expression refers to any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, which by means of its decisions determines rights and obligations of the individual. For this reason, the Court considers that any State organ that exercises functions of a materially jurisdictional nature has the obligation to adopt decisions that respect the guarantees of due process of law in the terms of Article 8(1) of the American Convention.280 Thus, the Court has establishes that, in proceedings such as those that may culminate in the expulsion or deportation of aliens, the State may not issue administrative acts or adopt judicial decisions without respecting certain basic guarantees, the content of which coincides substantially with those established in Article 8 of the Convention.281 Although extradition processes are mechanisms for international cooperation between States in criminal matters, the Court reiterates that they must observe the States’ international human rights obligations, insofar as the respective decision may affect the rights of the individual (supra para. 119). In particular, extradition proceedings must respect certain basic guarantees of due process, taking into account the political and legal aspects of such processes. 209. This Court has indicated that the “reasonable time” referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention must be assessed in relation to the total duration of the proceedings, from the first procedural action until a final decision is delivered, including any appeals that may eventually be filed.282 In this case, the extradition process has not concluded, so that it is necessary to take into account the time that has elapsed from the arrest of Wong Ho Wing on October 27, 2008, to date. In order to determine the reasonableness of the time that this process has lasted, the Court will proceed to analyze, in light of the facts of this case, the four elements that case law has established to determine where the time is reasonable: (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities,283 and iv) the [Gaberamadhien] v. France, No. 25389/05, Judgment of April 26, 2007, para. 58, and Case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GS], No. 27765/09. Judgment of February 23, 2012, para. 199. See also, mutatis mutandi, Rights and guarantees of children in the context of migration and/or in need of international protection, supra, para. 142. 280 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 71, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 146. 281 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 142; Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia, supra, para. 132, and Rights and guarantees of children in the context of migration and/or in need of international protection, supra, para. 112. 282 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 188. 283 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 189.