- 34 indicated that, in the case of Wong Ho Wing, the proceedings had been delayed owing to the appeals filed by his representative at the domestic and the inter-American level.139 Judge José Neyra Flores added that “the probability that he will avoid prosecution has not disappeared; to the contrary, the risk of his absconding is greater, because the Permanent Criminal Chamber has [now] declared […] the extradition request admissible […]; moreover, the processing of the order given in the said judicial ruling is suspended or pending execution,” in compliance with the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court.140 Meanwhile, the dissenting judges indicated that it was in order to grant the provisional release of Wong Ho Wing because, at that time, there was no risk of his absconding. In addition, they took into account the length of time that the presumed victim had been detained.141 104. Following the ruling of the Constitutional Court ordering the Executive Branch to refrain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing (supra para. 83), on October 5, 2011, his representative asked the Permanent Criminal Chamber for his “immediate release without any restrictions.”142 On October 10, 2011, the Criminal Chamber declared that this request should “be submitted […] to the corresponding court.”143 On October 18, the representative filed the request before the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao.144 105. On November 2, 2011, the judge asked the Ministry of Justice to forward the provisional arrest file.145 On November 4, the representative asked the Ministry of Justice to forward the file.146 On November 8, the representative asked the Seventh Criminal Court to ask the Ministry of Justice to forward the file.147 106. On November 25, 2011, the Ministry of Justice forwarded the said file and advised the court of the reasons for the delay in forwarding it.148 In this regard, it explained that the “request to 139 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 1602). 140 Cf. Vote of Supreme Justice José Antonio Neyra Flores of October 13, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1608 to 1611). 141 Cf. Vote of Judges San Martín Castro, Prado Saldarriaga and Príncipe Trujillo of September 10, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1593 and 1594). 142 Request dated October 5, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2724). 143 Decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of October 10, 2011 (evidence file, folio 304). 144 Cf. Request dated October 18, 2011 (evidence file, folio 306). 145 Cf. Note of the Seventh Criminal Court of October 26, 2011, received on November 2, 2011 (evidence file, folio 318). 146 Cf. Request dated November 4, 2011 (evidence file, folio 320). 147 Cf. Request dated November 8, 2011 (evidence file, folio 322). Additionally, following a request by the representative that he rule in this regard, on November 24, 2011, the Ombudsman sent a note to the Ministry of Justice asking it to forward the file of the provisional arrest so that he could decide the application for habeas corpus and asked the Vice Minister of Justice for “a report on the objective reasons why the official in charge of the sector had not responded to the note of the Seventh Court of El Callao [requesting the provisional arrest file], and had not forwarded this file.” This request was answered on December 1, indicating that the court’s request had already been answered and that “any evaluation of the reasonableness of the time taken by the extradition process could not be made without considering the procedural activity of the defense of the individual sought.” Cf. Request dated November 21, 2011 (evidence file, folio 331); note of the Ombudsman of November 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 315 and 316), and brief of the Ministry of Justice of December 1, 2011 (evidence file, folios 348 and 349). 148 Cf. Note of November 25, 2011, to the 30th Criminal Court of Lima (evidence file, folios 6469 and 6470), and communication of the Ministry of Justice of December 1, 2011 (evidence file, folios 348 and 349). The Office of Legal Advisory Services indicated that “it is necessary to comply with the request of the judge of the Seventh Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of El Callao, consisting in forwarding the documentation of the provisional arrest that forms part of the case file related to the passive extradition request of the Chinese citizen, Wong Ho Wing, because this is an order or demand made by the judge who is hearing the corresponding criminal proceeding.” In addition, it clarified that, as the Ministry of Justice does not have competence to deal with and/or decide release requests, the court’s note “constitutes a document that should be dealt with by the Ministry of Justice, without this signifying that it has decision-making powers.”