- 94 - 301. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “[t]o establish the measures necessary to ensure that the extradition process is brought to a conclusion as soon as possible, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Peruvian Code of Criminal Procedure, denying the extradition request in strict compliance with the judgment of the Constitutional Court of May 24, 2011.” In addition, it asked that in compliance with this measure, the State ensure that none of its authorities implement mechanisms that would obstruct or delay execution of that judgment. The representative asked the Court to order the State to take a decision in the extradition process as soon as possible, “denying the extradition request.” He also asked that, in no circumstance, should Wong Ho Wing be extradited to the People’s Republic of China where his life and personal integrity were at risk and, as a result, the total disintegration of his immediate family.” The State advised that the extradition process was at the final stage, so that the Commission’s request would “be assessed by the corresponding entities, in accordance with the laws of Peru in force and the regular domestic procedures, based on the Court’s decision” in this case. 302. The Court recalls that it has concluded that the State has not acted with the necessary due diligence in the extradition process, which has resulted in the excessive duration of the extradition proceedings and of the deprivation of Wong Ho Wing’s liberty. This constitutes a violation of the guarantee of a reasonable time in the processing of the extradition proceedings and of his detention in violation of Articles 7(1), 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, as decided in Chapters X and XI of this Judgment. Consequently, the Court finds that the State should take the final decision in the extradition process as soon as possible, taking into account paragraphs 193 to 223 of this Judgment. 303. In addition, bearing in mind the nature of the provisional measures ordered in this case, the Court considers that the State’s obligations under these measures is replaced by the measures ordered in this Judgment as of the date of its notification. B.1.b) Review of the provisional arrest 304. The Commission asked that the Court order the State to review ex officio the provisional detention of Wong Ho Wing, taking into consideration his legal situation following the conclusion of the extradition proceedings. In particular, it asked that any judicial decision on the personal liberty of Wong Ho Wing should be made “in strict compliance with the principles of exceptionality, necessity and proportionality.” The representative requested the immediate release of Wong Ho Wing. The State asserted that, on March 10, 2014, the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao had revoked the provisional arrest warrant and issued the measure of an order to appear in court periodically: house arrest, establishing a financial surety and the prohibition to leave the country. It argued that the court had taken into consideration the time Wong Ho Wing had spent in the Sarita Colonia Prison, and considered it appropriate to modify the measures; hence, the State considered that it had complied with the Commission’s request. 305. The Court recalls that Wong Ho Wing has been deprived of liberty since October 2008. Even though he has been kept under house arrest since March 2014, the Court reiterates its findings in this Judgment as regards the arbitrary nature of the detention, the excessive time taken to process the extradition proceedings, and the duration of the provisional arrest. The Court recalls that the purpose of the actual deprivation of liberty of Wong Ho Wing is his extradition. Therefore, taking into account the measure of reparation according to which the State must take a final decision in the extradition proceedings (supra para. 302), the Court orders the State to review, immediately, the deprivation of liberty of Wong Ho Wing, taking into account the standards established in Chapter XI of this Judgment. In addition, the State should take into consideration the time that he has remained deprived of his liberty to date and his actual situation and health care needs.