- 73 Wing the information he required to exercise his right to be heard or to file appropriate and prompt remedies during a proceeding in which his rights could be harmed. 225. The representative argued that “the procedural laws do not guarantee the right to be heard before [the authorities of the Executive Branch who exercise material jurisdiction to decide extradition matters] and they have not allowed Wong Ho Wing’s defense counsel to explain his arguments against extradition, to the detriment of the right of every person to be heard for the determination of his rights.” According to the representative, this “has established a context of secrecy and lack of transparency in the access to documentation of vital importance for the preparation of Wong Ho Wing’s defense against extradition, which has not been ensured by either the Judiciary or the Executive Branch during the proceedings,” in a case where the presumed victim was at risk of being condemned to death or suffering torture other ill-treatment. 226. The State argued that it had “not violated Wong Ho Wing’s right to be heard and to have information and means to defend himself.” In this regard, it underscored that, during the first stage of the extradition proceeding before the Judiciary, he was fully able to exercise his right of defense, while the second stage corresponded to a strictly political decision. Therefore, it considered that “[t]he responsibility of the State could only be involved if [the intervention of the person sought] was not established at any stage.” It also indicated that “the alleged normative omission [to establish by law, channels or means of intervention for the representative in the extradition proceedings before the Executive Branch] c[ould] not be cited as grounds for harming the presumed victim’s rights, since, in the practice, the extradition procedure before the Executive Branch was brought to a halt as a result of the legal actions filed by his procedural representative.” Also, it clarified that “if a political decision to extradite […] is considered to harm fundamental rights, the person concerned may contest it using the urgent mechanisms to protect fundamental rights.” Lastly, with regard to the alleged lack of access to the documentation, the State indicated that the decision to deny the representative’s request for access to information, “was not contested during the administrative proceeding, even though the possibility is established in the relevant law.” B.3.b) Considerations of the Court 227. In Peru, the extradition process has a judicial stage and a political stage. The arguments of the parties reveal that the dispute on the right to be heard refers to the political stage, while the dispute on the right of access to documents would appear to refer to both stages. 228. Regarding the right to be heard, the Court has indicated that this is protected in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in the general sense of including the right of every person to have access to the court or State body responsible for determining his rights and obligations.305 In this regard, the Court has indicated that the guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention suppose that the victims should have extensive possibilities of being heard and acting in their respective proceedings,306 so that they may indicate their claims and present probative elements and that these are analyzed in a complete and serious manner by the authorities before a decision is taken on the facts, responsibilities, punishments and reparation.307 305 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 74, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 181. 306 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 81, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 181. 307 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru, supra, para. 146, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 181.