- 35 send the arrest file was about to be answered […] when another note was received […] forwarding the proceedings regarding the release request that was the reason the file was required.” It indicated that, since the extradition request “had not been decided by the Executive Branch,” it was necessary to consult the Office of Legal Advisory Services how to proceed.149 It also underlined that: (i) “it was not the Ministry of Justice that requested the arrest […] and it […] cannot decide his release”; (ii) the arrest of […] Wong Ho Wing was made with a view to an extradition process that has not ended,” so that “no one can affirm that they know, or foresee, or state in advance, what decision the Peruvian State will take […] on the extradition,” and (iii) this “does not change the fact that a ruling of the Constitutional Court exists ordering that he not be extradited.”150 107. On December 1, 2011, the Seventh Criminal Court ordered the return of the provisional arrest and extradition files to the Ministry of Justice, and denied the release request, because the final decision was still pending.151 108. At the same time, on November 16, 2011, the representative filed a fourth application for habeas corpus against the Ministry of Justice and the judge of the Seventh Criminal Court of the Court Superior of El Callao based on the initial forwarding of the file of the provisional arrest to the Ministry of Justice and the subsequent failure to forward it to the court.152 On May 30, 2012, the application for habeas corpus was declared inadmissible, because it was not possible to observe “any harm to the constitutional rights of the beneficiary.”153 109. On April 26, 2013, the representative filed a sixth application for habeas corpus “asking [that] the immediate release of [Wong Ho Wing] without any restriction be ordered.”154 On October 24, 2014, the corresponding court considered the application inadmissible, taking into account that the deprivation of liberty had already been changed to house arrest, and also that “the decision to release the beneficiary is currently before [the Inter-American Court, so that lis pendens applies].”155 110. On November 20, 2013, Wong Ho Wing requested a change in the provisional arrest.156 111. On January 24, 2014, the representative filed a brief before the Constitutional Court requesting that it “make the necessary requests to the corresponding authorities so that they archive the extradition process in Peru against Wong Ho Wing and order his immediate release, with the return of his passport and other personal document.”157 On January 27, 2014, an order was issued to return the brief “to the appellant so that, if appropriate, he can defend it before the corresponding court.”158 149 Cf. Note of November 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 6466 and 6467). 150 Note of November 25, 2011, to the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao (evidence file, folios 6469 and 6470). On November 28, the Ministry of Justice sent another similar note to the 30th Criminal Court of Lima. Cf. Communication of November 28, 2011, to the judge of the 30th Criminal Court of Lima (evidence file, folio 346). 151 Cf. Decision of the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao of December 1, 2011 (evidence file, folio 6472). 152 Cf. Application for habeas corpus of November 16, 2011 (evidence file, folios 325 and 326). 153 Decision of the 30th Special Criminal Court of Lima of May 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 6443 to 6448). 154 Application for habeas corpus of April 26, 2013 (evidence file, folio 6086). 155 Judgment of the 33rd Criminal Court of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folios 8538 and 8539). 156 Cf. Brief of the representative of November 20, 2013 (evidence file, folio 6450). 157 Brief of January 24, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6118). 158 Note of the Secretary-Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court of January 27, 2014 (evidence file, folio 8545).