- 33 98. Wong Ho Wing’s defense filed an appeal against this provisional arrest warrant, contesting that he did not have “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 indicated that “when he is in [Peru], he stays at this hotel.”131 99. On November 6, 2008, the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China sent a note asked “the competent Peruvian authorities [to take the necessary steps] to ensure the provisional arrest of [Wong Ho Wing] before the arrival of the Chinese commission that would open the extradition process officially.”132 100. On December 11, 2008, the First Transitory Combined Superior Chamber of El Callao confirmed the arrest warrant decision, indicating that it met the requirements established in paragraphs 1, 4 and 10 of article 523. Regarding the arguments contained in the appeal, it indicated that “it was not incumbent [on the court] to analyze [the procedural risks] in the case of a provisional arrest with a view to extradition; rather, that corresponds to a criminal proceeding instituted in [Peru] for a specific offense, which has not occurred [in this case].”133 101. On September 18, 2009, the representative presented a release request to the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Peru’s Supreme Court of Justice.134 On September 21, 2009, this Second Criminal Chamber ordered that the request be forwarded “to another Supreme Court for a new ruling,” considering that it did not have the required competence.135 The file before this Court does not contain information on whether another court ruled on this request. 102. On August 5, 2010, the representative filed another application for release on bail before the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice requesting that it impose “an order to appear in court periodically with the prohibition to leave the country, pursuant to […] paragraph 6 [of Article 523].” In this regard, he indicated that, since the advisory decision had already been issued, “during the extradition process that was underway, the circumstances that surrounded it at the outset had changed substantially, which led to the conclusion that, if he is released, he will not abuse of his freedom to flee or to fail to comply with the obligations imposed on him.” Accordingly, he stated that “the provisions of paragraph 9 of article 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable, not only due to the length of [the deprivation of liberty], but also because [he meets] the conditions required to be granted this type of measure,” added to which this provision establishes ‘that the person arrested may obtain his provisional release, once the legal time limits established in the [extradition] treaty have expired.”136 103. On October 19, 2010, the Chamber declared the request for provisional release inadmissible.137 The four judges who voted in favor of its inadmissibility indicated, among other arguments, that there was no legal time limit for detention in extradition processes.138 They also 131 Appeal filed on October 29, 2008 (evidence file, folio 24). 132 Note of November 5, 2008, received on November 6, 2008 (evidence file, folios 32 and 33). 133 Decision of December 11, 2008, of the First Transitory Combined Superior Chamber (evidence file, folios 43 and 44). 134 Cf. Release request of September 18, 2009 (evidence file, folio 6405). 135 Cf. Decision of the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of September 21, 2009 (evidence file, folio 8532). 136 Request for release on bail of August 5, 2010 (evidence file, folio 227). 137 Cf. Decision of October 19, 2010 (evidence file, folio 263). 138 Cf. Vote of Supreme Justice José Antonio Neyra Flores of October 13, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1608 to 1611); Vote of José Luis Lecaros Cornejo and Jorge Calderón Castillo of September 10, 2010 (evidence file, folio 1598), and Vote of Judge Santa María Morillo of September 30, 2010 (evidence file, folio 1601).