62 detention180. In order to have additional elements to assess the figure of provisional detention for extradition, the Commission summarizes the record of the European Court on this issue. 184. In the case of Garabayev v. Russia the European Court wrote that for a detention with a view to extradition to be “lawful” under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the European Convention, it must conform to the procedural and substantive requirements laid down by a pre-existing law. The European Court added that a detention of this type must be “in conformity with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect individuals from arbitrariness.”181 In the same judgment, the European Court also examined whether the applicant had been brought promptly before a judge and the availability of judicial review of the detention prior to extradition, based on articles 5 § 3 and 5 § 4 of the European Convention.182 185. In the case of Quinn v. France, the European Court examined whether the applicant’s protracted detention while extradition proceedings were ongoing was lawful, and specifically challenged the delay in the proceedings while he was being held in custody. In that specific case, the European Court made reference to the standard of “due diligence” in extradition proceedings, as follows: It is clear from the wording of both the French and the English versions of Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) that deprivation of liberty under this sub-paragraph will be justified only for as long as extradition proceedings are being conducted. It follows that if such proceedings are not being 183 prosecuted with due diligence, the detention will cease to be justified (…) . The Court notes nevertheless that the applicant’s detention with a view to extradition was unusually long. He was detained in connection with the extradition proceedings from 4 August 184 1989 to 10 July 1991, almost two years (…). The Court notes that, at the different stages of the extradition proceedings, there were delays of sufficient length to render the total duration of those proceedings excessive: the first decision on the merits, a preliminary decision, was given on 2 November 1989, three months after the applicant had been placed in detention pending extradition, and the extradition order was not made until 24 January 1991, ten months after the Indictment Division’s favourable opinion (see paragraphs 22 and 25 above). The remedies of which Mr Quinn availed himself over this period (three appeals on points of law against the decisions dismissing applications for release and one appeal on points of law against the Indictment Division’s opinion - see paragraphs 20 and 23 180 See. IACHR. Case Velez Loor Vs. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 23 November 2010. Series C No. 218. 181 European Court of Human Rights. Case of Garabayev v. Russia. Application No. 38411/02. Judgment of June 7, 2007. Para. 87. Quoting. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Chahal v. the United Kingdom. Judgment of November 15, 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1864, 118. Garabayev v. Russia. Application No. 38411/02. Judgement of June 7, 2007. Para. 87. 182 European Court of Human Rights. Case of Garabayev v. Russia. Application No. 38411/02. Judgment of June 7, 2007. Para. 87. Quoting. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Chahal v. the United Kingdom. Judgment of November 15, 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1864, 118. Garabayev v. Russia. Application No. 38411/02. Judgement of June 7, 2007. Paragraphs 92 – 98, and 99-102. 183 European Court of Human Rights. Case of Quinn v. France. Application No. 18580/91. Judgement of March 22, 1995. Para. 48. 184 European Court of Human Rights. Case of Quinn v. France. Application No. 18580/91. Judgement of March 22, 1995. Para. 48.