92 307. The information available indicates that this procedure is only required in the first stage of the extradition process, which is conducted before the courts. That stage ends with issuance of the Advisory Resolution. Nothing in the law suggests that the person whose extradition is sought or his legal representative may participate in the decision-making stage, which is in the hands of the Executive Branch. 308. The provisions of the Peruvian Code of Criminal Procedure that regulate the extradition process, which were cited in the section on facts established, do not provide for any procedure that would ensure some form of participation for the person whose extradition is sought, so that the person might express his views on his extradition and/or take specific measures to assert the rights that he believes will be violated if his extradition is ordered. Nothing in the applicable provisions requires that the person in question be advised of any developments related to the extradition request. 309. Having examined the available records of the proceedings, the Commission observes that through his legal representative, Mr. Wong Ho Wing filed briefs during the process and has availed himself of a number of remedies. Nevertheless, the petitioner has alleged to the Commission that the State has violated his rights to due process, as he has not had access to basic documents pertaining to the extradition request, such as the request itself, or to the assurances offered by the People’s Republic of China and their content. The petitioner alleges that those documents have come his way as a result of the defense that the State mounted in the proceedings before the organs of the inter-American system. As the established facts show, at various times in the process Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s legal representative has filed requests for information on the documents pertaining to the extradition process. 310. The petitioner’s argument regarding the lack of timely information on the extradition process and the respective documents, is a negative argument, i.e., it involves an alleged omission by the State that cannot be proved. That being the case, it is up to the State, which has all the means to do so, to show otherwise. 311. On the burden of proving negative allegations, in the case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador the Court wrote the following: In the instant case, the victim has no available means of proving this fact. His allegation is of a negative nature, and indicates the inexistence of a fact. The State declares that the information about the reasons for the arrest was provided. This is an allegation of a positive nature and, thus, 245 susceptible of proof. 312. The Peruvian State has not provided the complete file of the extradition process or of the various remedies attempted in the domestic courts. Nor has it presented any documentation indicating that it did in fact make available to Mr. Wong Ho Wing and his legal representative the information needed to exercise his right to a hearing or to file adequate and timely remedies in the context of a process in which his rights might have been at stake. Thus, the Peruvian State failed to satisfy the burden of proof that was its burden under the circumstances. 245 I/A Court H.R., Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez. v. Ecuador Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170. Para. 73.