- 36 112. On March 10, 2014, the Seventh Criminal Court decided the request to change the provisional arrest in favor of Wong Ho Wing (supra para. 110), indicating that “the failure to establish a time limit for a provisional arrest with a view to extradition is incompatible with the principle of predictability and is also contrary to Article 7(5) of the American Convention.”159 Furthermore, it indicated that: [I]t is unreasonable that, in a passive extradition process such as this one, an individual may endure imprison for more than the maximum time that [the] procedural norm has established for an ordinary criminal proceeding; particularly if, in the extradition process, as in this case, there is no particular evidentiary activity, and neither numerous agents nor numerous victims are involved.160 113. The court concluded that “Wong Ho Wing [has been] deprived of his liberty for more than a reasonable time […]; therefore, it is necessary […] to impose on him a less severe measure that is less restrictive of his liberty, but that ensures that he remains in the country until the Executive Branch finally rules definitively on the extradition request.”161 The Court ordered “house arrest […] in the custody of his brother.”162 On March 24, the Seventh Criminal Court executed this order.163 114. On March 3, 2015, the representative requested a change in the house arrest order, owing to the “urgency of an operation for the presence of neoplasia.” He indicated that the change in the arrest warrant would mean that Wong Ho Wing could be treated promptly by the corresponding doctors. In addition, he underscored the length of time that the presumed victim’s deprivation of liberty had lasted.164 On June 3, 2015, the court declared the request inadmissible, indicated that the need to undergo an operation, “was not sufficient for the effect of changing the legal status of the applicant.”165 On June 11, the representative appealed this decision.166 The Court has no information on the result of this appeal. 7IX RIGHTS TO LIFE AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND PRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO ENSURE RIGHTS 115. In this chapter, the Court will examine the arguments of the Commission and of the parties concerning the extradition process in Peru against Wong Ho Wing. In this regard, the Court takes note that Peru was asked to extradite the presumed victim by the People’s Republic of China in 2008. To date, Wong Ho Wing has not been extradited. Under the laws of Peru, the extradition process has two parts, with the participation of the Supreme Court of Justice and of the Executive Branch. In this case, although the Supreme Court of Justice considered that the extradition was admissible, this determination constituted an advisory decision that, although favorable, was not 159 Decision of the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao of March 10, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6459). 160 Decision of the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao of March 10, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6463). 161 Decision of the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao of March 10, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6463). 162 Decision of the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao of March 10, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6464). 163 Cf. Decision of the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao of March 24, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6453). See also, affidavit made by Wong Ho Wing on August 1, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6850). 164 Cf. Request of the representative of March 3, 2015 (merits file, folios 1240 to 1247). 165 Decision of the Seventh Criminal Court of June 3, 2015 (merits file, folios 1307 to 1311) 166 Cf. Appeal of June 11, 2015 (merits file, folios 1325 to 1331).