39 Therefore, this petition is not viable because it fails to show any unlawful conduct or violations of due process on the part of the respondents. 21.- Because the respondents have not engaged in any violations or threats in processing the request filed by Office No. 24 of the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China seeking passive extradition of Chinese citizen Wong Ho Wing (in English) and/or Huan Hai Yong or Huang He Yong (in Chinese), much less any objective or concrete violation of the law or right 61 involved, the petition must be denied (…)” . 112. Mr. Lamas Puccio filed a remedy seeking protection against violation of a fundamental rights [Agravio Constitucional] to challenge this decision. 113. At the same time, on August 5, 2010 Mr. Lamas Puccio filed a brief with the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber in which he requested Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s provisional release. He also asked that a supervised release system be set up requiring Mr. Wong Ho Wing to check in briefly with the court and to bar him from leaving the country. The arguments made to support these requests included the following: (…) over the course of the proceedings conducted in connection with his extradition, the extraditurus’ original circumstances have changed considerably, which suggests that he will not abuse the freedom he is granted by attempting to flee or failing to comply with the obligations imposed upon him. The extraditurus has established roots in our country which at the outset were not so clear, especially given the circumstances surrounding his provisional arrest. It is reasonable to assume that the danger that the evidence suggested is nowhere near as great, so the circumstances that at the time led to his detention no longer obtain. (…) we have been compelled to file a complaint with the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES, headquartered in Washington, D.C., to denounce the Government of Peru. In the meantime, the extradition process moves forward and the Supreme Court’s two decisions ordering his extradition imply serious violations of the commitments that the Government of Peru undertook when it signed the American Convention on Human Rights (…) (…) this request is for provisional release, the purpose being to temporarily release a person from his detention until his legal situation is settled. The provisions of the ninth paragraph of Article 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply, not just because of the prison time he has endured since his arrest in October 2008, but also because he meets the conditions that must be met to 62 make him eligible for a measure of this kind (…). . 114. In processing this application for provisional release, on September 21, 2010 Luis Antonio Alvarado Villajuan, Public Prosecutor with the Ministry of Justice, and Delia Muñoz Muñoz, Special Supranational Public Prosecutor, filed a brief with the Supreme Court’s Permanent Criminal Chamber to request the “Nullity of the Procedural Act” and asked to be permitted to intervene in the proceeding to hear the motion for provisional release.63 61 Annex 41. Decision No. 300, Case 11-10 HC of April 14, 2010. Attachment to the brief received from the petition on May 3, 2010. 62 Annex 42. Brief arguing the petition for provisional release, which Mr. Luis Lamas Puccio filed on August 5, 2010 with the Supreme Court’s First Criminal Chamber. Attachment to the State’s October 25, 2010 communication. 63 Annex 43. Brief filed requesting the nullity of the hearing and its rescheduling. Attachment to the State’s October 25, 2010 communication.