PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ALBERTO PÉREZ PÉREZ
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF WONG HO WING v. PERU
JUDGMENT OF JUNE 30, 2015
(Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs)
1.
I have issued a negative vote in relation to the following operative paragraphs of
the judgment in the case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru:
Operative paragraph 3:
“The State is responsible for the violation of the guarantee of a reasonable time,
established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1)
thereof, to the detriment of Wong Ho Wing, in the terms of paragraphs 207 to
223.”
Operative paragraph 6:
“The State is not responsible for the violation of Article 7(2) of the Convention, in
relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Wong Ho Wing, in
the terms of paragraphs 259 to 262.”
Operative paragraph 9:
“It is not necessary to issue a ruling on the alleged failure to comply with the
obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions, recognized in Article 2 of the
Convention, in relation to the arbitrary nature of the detention of Wong Ho Wing,
in the terms of paragraph 256.”
Operative paragraph 13:
“The State must immediately review the deprivation of liberty of Wong Ho Wing,
as established in paragraph 305.”
2.
I will now explain the reasons for these negative votes.
Non-violation of the right to a reasonable time
3.
According to the judgment (para. 220, and also para. 223), the right to a
reasonable time (Art. 8(1) of the Convention) was violated owing to the “delay in the
final settlement of the extradition process, which can be attributed to the actions of the
State authorities.” However, as of May 2010, this Court had ordered numerous
provisional measures in favor of Wong Ho Wing1 in which it had required the State to
1
On February 24, 2010, the Inter-American Commission, during the proceedings before this organ, asked
the Court to adopt provisional measures in favor of Wong Ho Wing. The measures were granted for the first time
in May 2010. Following orders of November 26, 2010, and March 4 and July 1, 2011, extending their effects,
they were lifted in October 2011, after the decision of the Peruvian Constitutional Court of May 24 that year
ordering the Executive Branch to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing. Nevertheless, on June 26, 2012, the
Inter-American Court again granted provisional measures in favor of Wong Ho Wing due to “the State’s