86 282. Citing the European Court, the Inter-American Court wrote that in order to achieve the full effectiveness of a judgment, its implementation should be complete, perfect, comprehensive,238 and without delay.239 Of particular relevance to this case, in the case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, the Court made reference to possible interference by other branches of government to prevent execution of a court ruling. The Court wrote that: the provisions governing the independence of the judicial order must be made in an appropriate way so as to ensure the timely execution of the judgments without any interference by other 240 branches of Government and guarantee the binding and obligatory nature of the decisions of 241 last resort. The Court considers that in a system based on the principle of rule of law, all public authorities, within the framework of their jurisdiction, must take heed of judicial decisions and promote their execution without hindering the purpose and scope of the decision or unduly 242 delaying its implementation. 283. The order of Peru’s Constitutional Court, the State’s highest judicial authority in matters of constitutional law, issued a restraining order to the authorities in the Executive Branch who at the time and to this day had the obligation to issue a final ruling on the extradition request. The Constitutional Court’s decision, which the Executive Branch was bound to comply with, required that the final decision in the extradition process had to be to deny extradition. The Constitutional Court’s ruling even mentioned the possibility that the Peruvian State might itself prosecute and judge Mr. Wong Ho Wing. 284. Despite all this and although Mr. Wong Ho Wing is still being deprived of his liberty (a matter examined in the first section of this legal analysis), the Executive Branch has failed to put a 238 Furlan 2010. Citing Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 105, citing ECHR Case of Matheus v. France, (No. 62740/01), Judgment of March 31, 2005, para. 58. According to the principles proposed by the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), a Consultative Body of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on matters concerning the independence, impartiality and professional capacity of judges, "enforcement of judicial decisions should be fair, swift, effective and proportionate” (Cf. Opinion no. 13 (2010) On the role of judges in the enforcement of judicial decisions. Available at: https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CCJE(2010)2&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=D BDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864. 239 Furlan 210. Citing CF Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 105, citing ECHR, Case of Cocchiarella v. Italy (No. 64886/01), G.C., Judgment of March 29, 2006, para. 89, and Case of Gaglione et al. v. Italy, (No. 45867/07), Judgment of December 21, 2010, para. 34. In light of the ECHR’s established case law, a delay in the execution of judicial decisions may constitute a violation of the right to be heard within a reasonable time, as established by Article 6, para. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights since the “[e]xecution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the trial for the purposes of Article 6”. See also, ECHR, Case of Hornsby v. Greece, (No. 18357/91), Judgment of March 19, 1997, para. 40, and Case of Jasiūnienė v. Lithuania, (No. 41510/98), Judgment of March 6, 2003. Final, June 6, 2003, para. 27. 240 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 106. Cf. Advisory Opinion No. 13 (2010) On the role of judges in the enforcement of judicial decisions, Conclusions, F), See also ECHR, Case of Matheus v. France, paras. 58 and subsq. 241 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 106. This means that compliance is mandatory, and that if they are not obeyed voluntarily, may be enforced coercively. 242 Furlan 211. Citing. Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 106. The European Court has established in the case of Inmobiliare Saffi v. Italy that: “While it may be accepted that Contracting States may [...] intervene in proceedings for the enforcement of a judicial decision, the consequence of such intervention should not be that execution is prevented, invalidated or unduly delayed or, still less, that the substance of the decision is undermined”. Cf. ECHR, Case of Inmobiliare Saffi v. Italy, para. 74.