- 86 conducted within a reasonable time, the person must be released, without prejudice to other less harmful measures than deprivation of liberty being adopted that ensure his appearance before the court. 271. In this case, Wong Ho Wing was detained in prison for more than five years following his initial arrest on October 27, 2008 (supra paras. 60 and 96). Subsequently, on March 10, 2014, the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao changed this measure to “an order to appear in court periodically: house arrest” supra paras. 112 and 113), and he is currently detained in this way. Regarding the duration of the deprivation of liberty of Wong Ho Wing, first, the Court emphasizes that, from the time of his arrest and to date, the judicial authorities have committed different errors that have contributed to prolonging his detention (supra paras. 215 to 219). In this regard, the State has not acted with the greater diligence required when a person is detained (supra paras. 222 and 268). 272. Second, the Court recalls that the applicable regulations do not establish a time limit for preventive detention in extradition proceedings, once the formal extradition request has been received, or a time frame for the extradition process that might limit the duration of the detention (supra para. 255). This absence of a time frame was used in judicial decisions concerning Wong Ho Wing’s detention to justify its duration (supra paras. 103 and 255), preventing the analysis of the reasonable nature of the length of the presumed victim’s detention and allowing it to be prolonged excessively. 273. Lastly, the Court reiterates that the existence of precautionary and provisional measures cannot be used to justify the excessive duration of the extradition proceedings or the detention of Wong Ho Wing.352 In various orders on the provisional measures ordered in this case, the Court indicated that, “while this case is decided by the organs of the inter-American system, Peru may continue to adopt the necessary measures in relation to Wong Ho Wing to prevent his eventual extradition and the corresponding administration of justice in the requesting State from being ineffective or unrealistic.”353 This did not justify the deprivation of liberty of Wong Ho Wing indefinitely. Less harmful measures exist than imprisonment in a detention center that Peru could have adopted to avoid his eventual extradition becoming unrealistic, and this was not considered or analyzed by the State until March 2014. The Court stresses that orders for provisional measures must be interpreted taking into account the American Convention and this Court’s case law. Therefore, due diligence in the extradition process was required to ensure that the measures adopted were not arbitrary (supra paras. 248 and 255). 274. Similarly, in 2014, when examining the situation of Wong Ho Wing, the Ombudsman stated that: Although extradition proceedings do not have a legal time limit, the deprivation of liberty of the Chinese citizen for 39 months represented a delay that could not be justified by the fact that his defense had made use of constitutional or supranational proceedings. Consequently, [the State] was urged to adopt the corresponding measures that would allow the situation of [Wong] Ho Wing to be defined promptly. Judgment of November 15, 1996, para. 113; Case of Ryabikin v. Russia, No. 8320/04. Judgment of June 19, 2008, para. 131; Case of Akram Karimov v. Russia, No. 62892/12. Judgment of May 28, 2014, para. 156, and Case of Khomullo v. Ukraine, No. 47593/10. Judgment of November 27, 2014, para. 52. 352 Similarly, see, ECHR, Case of Ryabikin v. Russia, No. 8320/04. Judgment of June 19, 2008, para. 132, and Case of Gaforov v. Russia, No. 25404/09. Judgment of October 21, 2010, para. 200. 353 Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, considerandum 14. See also, Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, considerandum 18; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of August 22, 2013, considerandum 13.