- 83 Wing’s detention was used by the judicial authorities as an element to justify keeping him detained (supra para. 103). Thus, since it was used as a factor to continue his detention, the lack of predictability of the duration of the detention constituted an additional element of the arbitrariness of the detention, which has already been declared in paragraph 253 supra. 256. Nevertheless, the Court notes that, although it is not expressly established in the pertinent laws, the duration of the proceedings was analyzed in at least three decisions concerning Wong Ho Wing’s detention.346 Although only one of those decisions was in favor of the presumed victim, the representative has not provided sufficient arguments as to why the absence of express regulation would violate Article 2347 of the Convention. Consequently, this Court finds that it is not in order to rule on the alleged failure to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions established in Article 2 of the Convention. 257. Regarding the State’s arguments in relation to the failure to file an application for habeas corpus (supra para. 246), it should be emphasized that these arguments refer to a discussion on admissibility and not on merits, so that it is not necessary to analyze them at this time. B. The alleged unlawful and arbitrary nature of the detention after the decision of the Constitutional Court B.1) Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 258. The Commission argued that “Wong Ho Wing remains deprived of liberty without any legal justification […] because the purpose of his arrest – that is, to ensure his eventual extradition – became pointless […] following the order of the Constitutional Court not to extradite him,” and “no criminal proceeding has been instituted in Peru […], under which there would have to be a court order for his pre-trial detention in accordance with the Convention.” Therefore, this “situation of legal limbo […] constitutes an additional element of arbitrariness in light of Article 7(3) of the Convention.” The Commission has not ruled on the alleged unlawfulness of the detention. Meanwhile, the representative argued that the State had violated Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the Convention “because, [following the decision of the Constitutional Court], there is no criminal proceeding or […] extradition proceeding against Wong Ho Wing that would legally justify the restriction of his personal liberty.” The State asked that the representative’s “claim to include in the analysis of the case the presumed violation of the said Article 7(2) be disregarded, because it relates to facts that are outside the factual framework of the case delimited by the [Commission, which] has not raised the issue that the Peruvian State may have issued a detention order that was not in keeping with its domestic law.” Furthermore, it indicated that the representative “confused […] the exhortation of the [Constitutional] Court with a binding order to prosecute [Wong Ho Wing] in the domestic sphere,” and stressed that “the judgment of the Constitutional Court […] did not establish a mandate or order to release [Wong Ho Wing].” B.2) Considerations of the Court 259. First, the Court recalls that, contrary to what the State has indicated, the facts relating to Wong Ho Wing’s detention following the decision of the Constitutional Court do fall within the 346 Cf. Vote of Supreme Justice José Antonio Neyra Flores of October 13, 2010, with regard to the decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of October 19, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1608 to 1611); Judgment of the 30th Criminal Court Lima of May 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 6447 and 6448), and Decision of the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao of March 10, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6463). 347 Article 2 of the Convention establishes that: “Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.”