- 81 detention of Wong Ho Wing, relates to the grounds for the decision on the appeal issued by the First Transitory Combined Superior Chamber of El Callao on December 11, 2008, as well as the lack of a time limit for this detention. Consequently, the Court will analyze whether the grounds for the said decision reveal that it was necessary and proportionate (supra para. 248) and will then examine the arguments regarding the unpredictability of the duration of the detention. 250. As already established, States have the authority and, in some cases the obligation, to facilitate the extradition of citizens sought by another State using procedures that are compatible with the American Convention (supra para. 119). Therefore, implementation of the extradition may be a legitimate purpose pursuant to the Convention. In this regard, in cases relating to pre-trial detentions during criminal proceedings, the Court has indicated that the deprivation of the accused’s liberty cannot be founded on general or special preventive objectives that can be attributed to the punishment, but only on a legitimate purpose, namely: to ensure that the accused does not interfere with the development of the proceedings or evade prosecution.336 It has also underscored that procedural risk cannot be presumed, but must be verified in each case, based on the objective and evident circumstances of the specific case.337 251. This Court considers that these criteria are also applicable to detentions with a view to extradition. Therefore, detention of individuals sought in extradition processes will be arbitrary when the competent authorities order the individual’s detention without verifying whether, in the objective and evident circumstances of the case, this is necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose of the measure; that is, the possibility that this person may evade extradition. This analysis must be made in each specific case and by an individualized and founded assessment. 252. In this case, the Court notes that article 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not condition the admissibility of the provisional arrest to the existence of a procedural risk, but merely establishes the possibility that the individual arrested may request his provisional release if he meets the corresponding procedural requirements (supra para. 241). Nevertheless, the Court notes that the arrest warrant of October 28, 2008, does take the procedural risk into account (supra paras. 97 and 247). Following the provisional arrest warrant of October 28, 2008, the representative filed an appeal refuting the fact that Wong Ho Wing did not have any “known employment in the country” because he was the “founder and main shareholder of a company [that] he administers: the […] ‘Hotel Maury.’” Also, regarding the domicile, he pointed out that, “when he is in [Peru,] he stays at this hotel”338 (supra para. 98). When deciding the appeal on December 11, 2008, the Chamber indicated with regard to the arguments of procedural risk that “regarding the procedural risk […], it was not for the Chamber to analyze this for a provisional arrest with a view to extradition; rather it corresponded to a criminal proceeding instituted in [Peru] for a specific offense, which was not the case with [Wong Ho Wing].”339 253. The Court finds that, by failing to evaluate the procedural risk in relation to Wong Ho Wing, it was impossible for the Combined Superior Chamber to examine whether the deprivation of liberty 336 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits, supra, para. 77, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and an activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 312. 337 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 115, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and an activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 312. 338 Appeal filed on October 28, 2008 (evidence file, folio 24). Similarly, on October 28, 2008, Wong Ho Wing had declared that he was in Peru “owing to a business investment of the Hotel Maur[y,] of which he was the majority shareholder, and also to see if he could invest in mines” and that, in Peru, he had “three hotels and a house that are the Hotel Maury and two small hotels and [his] house located in Camacho La Molina.” Preliminary statement made by Wong Ho Wing on October 28, 2008, before the Special Criminal Court of El Callao (evidence file, folio 13). 339 Decision of December 11, 2008, delivered by the First Transitory Combined Superior Chamber (evidence file, folio 44).