- 82 was necessary or whether, in the specific case of Wong Ho Wing, less harmful measures existed that would have ensured the implementation of the extradition. Consequently, the grounds for this decision were insufficient to justify the need for the measure of deprivation of liberty. Since it was not properly founded, following that decision the deprivation of liberty of Wong Ho Wing was arbitrary in violation of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Wong Ho Wing. Based on this conclusion, the Court considers it unnecessary to rule on the alleged violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention argued by the representative based on the same facts. 254. In addition, regarding the allegation of the detention’s lack of predictability, this Court has established that the unpredictability of a deprivation of liberty may make it arbitrary (supra para. 238). Thus, the Court has indicated that the law on which the deprivation of personal liberty is based must establish as specifically as possible and “beforehand” the “reasons” for and “conditions” of the deprivation of physical liberty.340 Compliance with these requirements is designed to protect the individual from arbitrary detention.341 Among the conditions for deprivation of liberty, the applicable law should include criteria concerning the limits to its duration.342 Similarly, expert witness Ben Saul indicated that laws that do not include time limits for a detention cannot comply with the requirement of predictability.343 In addition, the Seventh Criminal Court, which decided the request to modify the provisional arrest, indicated that “the absence of a time limit expressly established for the mechanism of the provisional arrest with a view to extradition is incompatible with the principle of predictability.”344 255. As the State has recognized, “there is no time limit for deprivation of liberty during the passive extradition proceedings, or a time limit for the final decision on it.” This Court notes that neither the Extradition Treaty signed between China and Peru, nor the Peruvian Code of Criminal Procedure establish a time limit for the provisional detention in an extradition process once the formal extradition request is received or, if applicable, a time frame for the extradition process that could limit the duration of the detention.345 The Court considers that the inclusion of time limits for a detention is a safeguard against the arbitrariness of the deprivation of liberty and, in this case, its omission also permitted the excessive duration of the detention of Wong Ho Wing, as the Court will analyze infra (paras. 267 to 275). In this case, the absence of a precise time limit to Wong Ho 340 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 56 and 57, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 116. 341 Similarly, the European Court has established that the protection of the individual from arbitrariness means that the law must be sufficiently precise and its application foreseeable. Cf. ECHR, Case of Ryabikin v. Russia, No. 8320/04. Judgment of June 19, 2008, para. 127; Case of Baranowski v. Poland, No. 28358/95. Judgment of March 28, 2000, paras. 50 to 52; Case of Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02. Judgment of November 8, 2005, para. 125; Case of Calovskis v. Latvia, No. 22205/13. Judgment of July 24, 2014, para. 182; Case of L.M. v. Slovenia, No. 32863/05. Judgment of June 12, 2014, paras. 121 and 122. 342 In this regard, the European Court has indicated that: “The Court observes that the domestic law regulated in detail ‘detention pending investigation’ in ordinary criminal proceedings and set specific time-limits for the pre-trial detention of criminal defendants. However, there was no provision in the domestic law concerning a time-limit specifically applying to detention ‘with a view to extradition’. The Court notes that in the absence of clear legal provisions establishing the procedure for ordering and extending detention with a view to extradition and setting time-limits for such detention, the deprivation of liberty to which the applicant was subjected was not circumscribed by adequate safeguards against arbitrariness”. ECHR, Case of Garayev v. Azerbaijan, No. 53688/08. Judgment of June 10, 2010, para. 99. See also, ECHR, Case of Ryabikin v. Russia, No. 8320/04. Judgment of June 19, 2008, para. 129. 343 Cf. Affidavit made by Ben Saul on August 18, 2014 (evidence file, folios 6904 and 6950). 344 Decision of the Seventh Criminal Court of El Callao of March 10, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6459). 345 Regarding the length of the detention, the Extradition Treaty between China and Peru only establishes that: “The preventive detention shall conclude if the competent authority of the Requested Party has not received the formal extradition request within 60 days of the detention of the person sought. This period may be extended by a further 30 days when the Requesting Party provides reasons that justify this.” Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Peru and the People’s Republic of China (evidence file, folio 1635).