67 Analysis of the remedies filed by Mr. Wong Ho Wing for his personal liberty 201. According to the facts established, in addition to the appeal challenging the initial warrant for his provisional arrest, which was decided in the December 11, 2008 ruling examined earlier in this report, Mr. Wong Ho Wing has been filing a series of remedies to challenge his deprivation of liberty. 202. Thus, on August 5, 2010, Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s legal representative filed a brief with the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber in which he requested that Mr. Wong Ho Wing be granted provisional release. On January 26, 2009, Mr. Wong Ho Wing filed a petition of habeas corpus; the ruling on that petition, delivered on October 19, 2010, was not in his favor. 203. Despite the earlier analysis of the arbitrary nature of the provisional arrest ordered in this case, the Commission finds no reason to consider that this remedy was a violation of Article 7(6) of the American Convention in terms of access to a remedy that promptly settles the question of the legality of the detention. 204. In the wake of the Constitutional Court’s May 24, 2011 decision, on October 18, 2011 Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s legal representative sought his immediate release based on the order in that ruling to stop extradition. From the facts established, the decision on this release request came up against several problems, caused by the fact that the provisional arrest file was in the possession of the Ministry of Justice. After a request filed by the Ombudsperson’s Office and various briefs from Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s legal representative, including a petition of habeas corpus, on December 1, 2011 the Ministry of Justice sent a brief to the Ombudsperson’s Office indicating that the provisional arrest file was part of the extradition file and was therefore already in the hands of the Executive Branch, which was a “new and peculiar” situation. The Commission does not have any information as to how this request for Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s release by virtue of the Constitutional Court’s ruling was resolved. 205. The decision on this petition, which was challenging the fact that Mr. Wong Ho Wing was still being deprived of his liberty despite the ruling by the Constitutional Court, was obstructed because the case file was in the hands of the Executive Branch, together with the extradition file. The Commission finds no explanation that would justify the fact that in the two months between October 18, 2011 and December 1, 2011, the Peruvian authorities were unable to orchestrate the transfer of a file and enforce the decision on this remedy “without delay”. Furthermore, the IACHR does not know whether or not the situation was ultimately resolved. However, the information available indicates that as of this date Mr. Wong Ho Wing has not yet obtained a court ruling that, from the remedies filed by his legal representative, decides the question of the legality of his detention subsequent to the May 24, 2011 ruling of the Constitutional Court. The Commission considers that these facts constitute a violation of the right recognized in Article 7(6) of the American Convention. 206. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Peru violated the right to personal liberty recognized in articles 7(1), 7(3), 7(5) and 7(6) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations undertaken in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Wong Ho Wing. 207. Finally, the Commission observes that the violations declared in this section do not, in practice, have anything to do with the duration of the proceedings with the IACHR. Quite the contrary, Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s provisional arrest was deemed arbitrary precisely because it served no procedural