- 85 with a view to the extradition.” In this case, “the Executive Branch has [taken] a series of measures that have delayed the adoption of a final decision, despite the existence of a Constitutional Court judgment […] ordering it to refrain from extraditing him.” He also stressed that the fact that “procedural law on extradition does not establish a time limit for the deprivation of liberty during the extradition process or a deadline for ending it […] adds a degree of arbitrariness to Wong Ho Wing’s situation.” 266. The State responded that Article 7(5) of the Convention in relation Article 2 thereof had not been violated. Regarding due diligence, it argued that “in view of the fact that, in the opinion of the jurisdictional authorities, neither the conditions nor the procedural risk in this case had changed, the provisional arrest warrant was confirmed, […] since it continued to seek the procedural purpose of passive extradition and grounds were provided for why the measure should not be modified.” The State indicated that, “the extradition process has not concluded, but this is because it has been extended owing to the domestic and international mechanisms for the protection of [Wong Ho Wing’s] rights filed by his representative, which have raised concerns about the protection of his rights in relation to the offenses for which his extradition is sought.” It added that, “the time that has passed without a final decision is an objective factor that, of itself, does not allow it to be concluded that due diligence has not been exercised, but it is necessary to analyze the specific situation in order to identify whether there are sufficient grounds to justify the delay.” Regarding the proportionality of the delay, it claimed that “it is in keeping with the law, because no time limit exists for deprivation of liberty during the passive extradition process, or for the final decision in the process.” C.2) Considerations of the Court 267. Article 7(5) of the Convention establishes that: “[a]ny person detained […] shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial.” 268. In cases relating to preventive or pre-trial detention in the context of criminal proceedings, the Court has indicated that this norm imposes time limits on the duration of preventive detention and, consequently, the authority of the State to ensure the purposes of the proceedings by means of this preventive measure. When the length of the preventive detention exceeds a reasonable time, the State may restrict the liberty of the accused with other less harmful measures that ensure his appearance at trial other than the deprivation of liberty. This right of the individual is accompanied by a judicial obligation to process the criminal proceedings during which the accused is deprived of his liberty with greater diligence and promptness.349 269. The American Convention does not establish a limitation to the exercise of the guarantee established in Article 7(5) of the Convention based on the reasons or circumstances why the person has been detained.350 Consequently, the Court finds that this provisions is also applicable to detention for extradition purposes, as in this case. 270. The European Court of Human Rights has indicated, similarly, that detention with a view to extradition “will be justified only for was long as extradition proceedings are being conducted. It follows that if such proceedings are not being prosecuted with due diligence, the detention will cease to be justified under [the Convention].”351 Thus, if the extradition proceedings are not 349 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 70, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 129. 350 351 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 107. Cf. ECHR, Case of Kolompar v. Belgium, No. 11613/85. Judgment of September 24, 1992, para. 36; Case of Quinn v. France, No. 18580/91. Judgment of March 22, 1995, para. 48; Case of Chahal v. The United Kingdom [GS], No. 22414/93.