- 84 factual framework of the proceedings. Also, the Court reiterates that the presumed victims and their representatives may claim the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided these relate to the facts contained in that document (supra para. 35). Therefore, the Court will proceed to analyze the arguments of the representative and the Commission. 260. Regarding the detention of Wong Ho Wing following the Constitutional Court’s judgment, the representative argued that it became unlawful and arbitrary, while the Commission only considered that the detention became arbitrary. 261. The analysis of whether a detention is lawful entails an examination of whether the domestic law was observed when a person was deprived of his liberty (supra para. 237). The Court must, therefore, verify whether, following the decision of the Constitutional Court, Wong Ho Wing’s detention was in keeping with the laws of Peru. 262. The law in force at the time of the facts reveals that a person could be deprived of liberty when his extradition was being sought by foreign authorities (supra para. 241). Also, according to the law, the extradition process concluded with the Executive Branch’s decision on whether or not to grant the extradition.348 Pursuant to this law, the Constitutional Court “order[ed] the Peruvian State, represented by the Executive Branch, to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing to the People’s Republic of China” (supra para. 83). But, accordingly, this decision did not signify the end of the extradition process, and thus the conditions that allowed the detention to be lawful remained in effect. Consequently, the State is not responsible for a violation of Article 7(2) of the American Convention. 263. Regarding the alleged arbitrary nature of the detention following the Constitutional Court’s decision (supra paras. 258 and 260), the Court reiterates that the order of the Constitutional Court did not signify the end of the extradition process. Moreover, considering that, in the preceding section, this Court has already determined that the detention was arbitrary (supra paras. 247 to 255), the Court finds it unnecessary to analyze its alleged arbitrariness following the decision of the Constitutional Court. C. The duration of the provisional arrest C.1) Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 264. The Commission indicated that “a duration of four years and nine months to take a final decision in an extradition process, is prima facie problematic, and requires sufficient justification by the State of the reasons for the delay in the final decision.” In this regard, it underlined that, while “receiving the diplomatic assurances,” the State “was responsible for errors and omissions […] that affected the duration of the process and, consequently, the personal liberty of Wong Ho Wing,” and that “the delay was not justified in light of the factors analyzed when examining the guarantee of a reasonable time.” It added that, following the Constitutional Court’s decision, “a situation of legal limbo [was created that] has resulted in an excessive duration of the deprivation of liberty […] in violation of Article 7(5)”. 265. The representative argued that “Wong Ho Wing [has been] deprived of his personal liberty without judicial control and for an excessive amount of time in violation of Article 7(5) of the Convention.” He also indicated that, “in similar cases, […] the assessment of the length of the detention has been made based on the due diligence with which the States had taken measures 348 Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure, promulgated by Legislative Decree No. 957 of July 29, 2004, Available at: http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Decretoslegislativos/00957.pdf, cited in the Commission’s Merits Report, folio 24. See also, testimony of Víctor García Toma during the public hearing in this case.