- 87 - Also, it was recommended that the decision adopted must respect the Constitutional Court’s arguments in the application for habeas corpus filed on behalf of Wong Ho Wing […], ordering the Peruvian State to refrain from extraditing this individual.354 275. Based on the preceding conclusions, the State violated Article 7(1) and 7(5) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Wong Ho Wing. The arguments on the alleged lack of judicial control will be analyzed in the following section. D. Right to appeal before a competent court D.1) Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 276. The Commission affirmed that “in the wake of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of May 24, 2011, [on October 18, 2011,] the representative […] sought his immediate release based on the order in that judgment,” but this “came up against several problems because the provisional arrest file was in the hands of the Ministry of Justice.” In its Merits Report, the Commission indicated that, at that date, “Wong Ho Wing ha[d] not obtained a court ruling that, in the context of the remedies filed by his legal representative, decide[]d] on the lawfulness of his detention after the judgment of the Constitutional Court,” thus violating the “right recognized in Article 7(6) of the Convention”. 277. The representative argued that, “[i]n this case, the Peruvian authorities have not ensured the effectiveness of the remedy of habeas corpus.” In this regard, he indicated that “six applications for habeas corpus” had been filed,” and the third one “was declared admissible by the Constitutional Court”; however, “the Peruvian State has no complied with this decision, because it has not denied the request for Wong Ho Wing’s extradition and ordered his release.” In addition, he indicated that, with regard to the fourth, fifth and sixth application for habeas corpus, the judicial authorities had “not decided on their merits to ensure his personal liberty.” In this regard, he stressed that, at the time of the submission of the motions and arguments brief, the “fourth application for habeas corpus, filed on November 16, 2011,” had not been decided after two years and two months, “which evidently also violates the guarantee of a reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention.” He also indicated that the fifth and sixth applications for habeas corpus filed on March 13, 2012, and April 26, 2013, had also not been decided. In addition, he indicated that the response of the Permanent Criminal Chamber to the release request of October 10, 2011, “mean[t] that the Peruvian State did not guarantee, in the terms of Article 25(1) of the Convention […], a simple and prompt remedy, but rather obliged the [presumed] victim […] to use a series of remedies that, owing to the passage of time, make execution of the Constitutional Court’s judgment unrealistic.” In addition, he indicated that in the context of the release request of October 18, 2011, “officials of the Executive Branch […] failed to forward the provisional arrest file to the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao […], even in response to two urgent requests, so that it could take a decision on Wong Ho Wing’s release in execution of the ruling of the Constitutional Court.” He emphasized that this “serious omission […] prevented the Seventh Criminal Court […] from carrying out prompt judicial control for more than two years and eight month.” He concluded that the Peruvian authorities had not ensured the effectiveness of the application for habeas corpus on behalf of Wong Ho Wing, in violation of Articles 7(6), 8(1), 25(1), 25(2)(a) and 25(2)(c) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 278. The State, with regard to the alleged violation of Article 7(6) of the Convention, denied that it had had “the intention not to provide the provisional arrest file to the courts in order to decide the release request filed following the judgment the Constitutional Court.” It indicated that the 354 Note of the Ombudsman of September 4, 2014 (evidence file, folio 7293).