- 11 -
29. On the second point alleged by the State, the Court notes that, at the admissibility stage of
the petition, two applications for habeas corpus had been filed and decided in relation to the
“certain and imminent threat of violation of the rights to life and personal integrity of Wong Ho
Wing” (infra paras. 65 and 74) and a decision was pending on a third application for habeas corpus
filed by the presumed victim and his representative (infra para. 79). These applications for habeas
corpus were filed in parallel to the extradition proceedings and could be appropriate as regards
some of the alleged violations. However, the Court stresses that the application for habeas corpus
is not part of the regular extradition process in Peru17 and, thus, the filing of additional remedies
by the petitioner could not preclude access to inter-American justice.
30. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court finds it unnecessary to diverge from the
opinion indicated by the Commission in its Admissibility Report in this case. Consequently, the
Court rejects the preliminary objection.
V
PROVISIONAL MEASURES
31. 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 2010.18 Following orders of November 26, 2010, and March
4 and July 1, 2011, that extended their effects,19 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.20 Nevertheless, on June 26, 2012, this Court again granted
provisional measures in favor of Wong Ho Wing due to “the State’s uncertainty” about the
possibility of extraditing him, based on presumed “new facts.” These measures were maintained by
orders dated December 6, 2012, February 13, May 22 and August 22, 2013, and January 29 and
March 31, 2014.21 In both May 2010 and June 2012, the provisional measures were ordered to
allow the inter-American system to examine and rule on this case, as well as to prevent frustration
of compliance with an eventual decision by its organs.22 Based on the orders of January and March
2014, the measures remain in force.23
17
Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure promulgated by Legislative Decree No. 957 of July 29, 2004, articles 516 to 524. Available
at: http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Decretoslegislativos/00957.pdf, cited in the Commission’s Merits Report,
folio 24. Moreover, in its brief with final arguments, the State itself indicated that “[t]he intervention of the Peruvian
Constitutional Court is not established in extradition proceedings.”
18
Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010. Previously,
the President of the Court had required the State to “refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing while the request for provisional
measures [had not been] decided by the plenary of the Inter-American Court”. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures
with regard to Peru. Order of the acting President of the Court of March 24, 2010.
19
Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of November 26, 2010; Matter
of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of March 4, 2011, and Matter of Wong Ho
Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of July 1, 2011.
20
Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of October 10, 2011.
21
Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, fourth having
seen paragraph and considerandum 38, and subsequent orders extending their effects: Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional
measures with regard to Peru. Order of the acting President of the Court of December 6, 2012; Matter of Wong Ho Wing.
Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional
measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard
to Peru. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013; Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the
Court of January 29, 2014, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of March
31, 2014.
22
Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, first operative
paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, first
operative paragraph, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of January 29,