91 passed and the Executive Branch has still not closed the extradition process. As for the procedural activity on the part of Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s defense counsel, the Commission considers that the petitions of habeas corpus they have filed are among the measures the victim in this case has taken in defense of his rights. 302. Finally, this case is one in which the legal situation of the person affected by the delay is particularly relevant. As previously explained, the delay in the final resolution of the extradition process to comply with the Constitutional Court’s ruling, is why Mr. Wong Ho Wing is still being deprived of his liberty after more than four and a half years, without ever being criminally prosecuted but still being held under provisional arrest for what has become an excessive period of time. This is a particularly grave situation since, after issuance of the Constitutional Court’s ruling prohibiting the victim’s extradition, his continued detention has no legal grounds and the procedural end supposedly being sought by his arrest is now meaningless. 3.2. As for the right to a hearing and to information and means to prepare his defense 303. The Commission notes that under Article 521 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, once the person is in custody, a statement is to be taken from him, he is to be advised beforehand of the reasons for his arrest and of the details of the extradition request. It also provides that the person shall be informed of his right to an attorney of his choosing or to have a court-appointed attorney to represent him. This provision also states that the person in custody may make whatever comment he wishes regarding the content of the extradition request, and may question the identity of the person whose extradition the foreign courts are seeking, or withhold his statement until the extradition oversight hearing. It also provides that if the person in custody does not speak Spanish, an interpreter shall be appointed. 304. Paragraph 3 of that article provides for an initial public hearing, with a prior summons and the participation of the person sought in extradition and his defense counsel. It also states that he may make the arguments that he deems relevant, introduce evidence or challenge the evidence in the extradition case file. 305. Paragraph 4 of Article 521 provides for an “extradition hearing” before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (which is the body that issues the advisory resolution) in which the person whose extradition is sought and his defense counsel may participate. 306. Based on the facts established in this case, the Commission observes that Article 521 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes some of the guarantees of due process for the person whose extradition is sought. Specifically, this article stipulates that once the person is in custody, “the judge presiding over the preparatory investigation […] shall inform the person whose extradition has been requested of the reasons for his arrest and the details of the extradition request. The Judge shall also advise said person of his right to name his own defense counsel and, if unable to do so, to have a courtappointed attorney designated to represent him. If he so desires; the person in custody may make whatever comment he wishes to make regarding the content of the extradition request, and may question the identity of the person whose extradition the foreign courts are seeking, or withhold his statement until the extradition oversight hearing. If the person in custody does not speak Spanish, an interpreter shall be appointed.” This provision also states that a public hearing shall be convened, in which the defense attorney representing the requested person shall participate; it also allows for the introduction of evidence, and challenges to or support of the evidence in the case file.