- 80 the representative had alleged a violation of Article 2 of the Convention without providing grounds for this. A.2) Considerations of the Court 247. On October 27, 2008, Wong Ho Wing was detained based on an international arrest warrant. The following day, the special court ordered his provisional arrest and indicated that this arrest had been made “in order to ensure the presence in the country [of Wong Ho Wing] while the extradition request was fully processed, because he had not proved that he had any known domicile or employment in the country and, because the offense of which he was accused was established in the laws [of Peru] under Customs Offenses: evasion of customs duty”329 (supra para. 97). Wong Ho Wing’s defense lawyer filed an appeal against this measure before the First Transitory Combined Superior Chamber. On December 11, 2008, the First Combined Superior Chamber confirmed the provisional arrest warrant330 (supra para. 100). Both decisions were delivered taking into account article 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (supra para. 241). There is no dispute about the conformity of these decisions with Peruvian law. 248. The Inter-American Court has indicated that, notwithstanding the lawfulness of a detention, in each case an analysis must be made of the law’s compatibility with the Convention, in the understanding that the law and its application must respect the following requirements to ensure that the deprivation of liberty is not arbitrary:331 (i) that the purpose of the measures that deprive or restrict liberty are compatible with the Convention; (ii) that the measures adopted are appropriate to achieve the purpose sought; (iii) that they are necessary, in the sense that they are absolutely essential to achieve the purpose sought and that there is no less onerous measure, with regard to the right affected, among all those with the same ability to achieve the proposed purpose - which is why the Court has asserted that the right to personal liberty presumes that any restriction of this right must be exceptional,332 and (iv) that the measures are strictly proportionate,333 so that the sacrifice inherent in the restriction of the right to liberty is not exaggerated or excessive in relation to the advantages obtained from its restriction and achievement of the purpose sought.334 Any restriction of liberty that does not contain sufficient grounds which allow it to be evaluated to ensure that it meets these conditions will be arbitrary and, therefore, violate Article 7(3) of the Convention.335 249. The Court notes that the arguments of the Commission and the representative do not refer to the initial detention, or to the order of October 28, 2008. Therefore, the dispute between the parties does not relate to the lawfulness or arbitrariness of Wong Ho Wing’s initial detention. This appears to have been carried out to meet the State’s international obligations under the Extradition Treaty and also as a member of INTERPOL (supra para. 239), which has not been questioned before this Court. The dispute between the parties, regarding the alleged arbitrary nature of the 329 Provisional arrest warrant of October 28, 2008 (evidence file, folio 18). 330 Cf. Decision of December 11, 2008, delivered by the First Transitory Combined Superior Chamber (evidence file, folio 44). 331 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 93, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 120. 332 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 129, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and an activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 310. 333 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, supra, para. 129, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 120. 334 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 93, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 120. 335 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, supra, para. 128, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 120.