- 68 effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings.284 In this chapter, the Court will only analyze the reasonableness of the time of the extradition process and not of the proceedings resulting from the applications for habeas corpus, which will be examined in the chapter on the deprivation of liberty of Wong Ho Wing (infra Chapter XI). However, the applications for habeas corpus will be taken into account to the extent that they affected the duration of the extradition process. B.2.a) Complexity of the matter 210. This Court has taken different criteria into account to determine the complexity of a proceeding.285 These include the complexity of the evidence,286 the number of procedural subjects,287 or the number of victims,288 the time elapsed since the violation,289 the characteristics of the remedies established by domestic law,290 the context in which the violation occurred,291 and the number of remedies filed in the proceedings.292 The Court affirms that, contrary to the State’s assertions, the lack of clarity in the judgments of the local courts or the application of provisional measures ordered by the inter-American system for the protection of human rights cannot exempt the State from its obligation to ensure the reasonable time of the proceedings, or to justify their delay. However, in this case, the Court notes that the extradition process between Peru and China involves diplomatic relations and communications between two States with different legal systems and languages and that require the participation of numerous and different entities of both States. In addition, the absence of case law in this matter at the domestic or regional level and the diversity of remedies filed by both the presumed victim and the organs of the State (infra B.2.b and B.2.c) have contributed to make the process more complex and had an impact on prolonging it.293 Therefore, the Court recognizes that the case is complex. However, the other elements of a reasonable time must be examined to determine whether the State has complied with this guarantee. B.2.b) Procedural activity of the interested party 284 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 189. 285 Cf. Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012 Series C No. 246, para. 156, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 190. 286 Cf. inter alia, Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 78, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 157. 287 Cf. inter alia, Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 106, and Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 14, para. 133. 288 Cf. inter alia, Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 152; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 184, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 113. 289 Cf. inter alia, Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 150 and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 245. 290 Cf. inter alia, Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 83, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 190. 291 Cf. inter alia, Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 184, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 293. 292 293 Cf. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 173. Cf. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 173. In this regard, see ECHR, Case of Stoidis v. Greece, No. 46407/99, Judgment of May 17, 2001, para. 18.