claims that the petitioner could have invoked Article 137 of the Constitution of Suriname to challenge (the application of) the Act on Indictment of Political Office Holders but “failed to do so”. The State further contends that the petition is not valid as it was filed in June 2003 prior to final judgment of the High Court of Suriname in November 2003. 1. Merits of petition/failure to disclose colorable violations 28. The State acknowledges that the petitioner was indicted, tried, and convicted of offences committed in his capacity as Minister of Government in a previous administration. The State confirms that the petitioner was indicted under the Act on Indictment of Political Office Holders (“the Act”) for the offences of forgery, fraud (under the Penal Code), and violation of the Foreign Exchange Act (in conjunction with the Act on Economic Offences). The State submits that these “punishable acts” have been offences in Suriname for many decades, in some cases, up to almost 100 2[2] years. The Act was passed in 2001 to implement Article 140 of the Suriname Constitution. Article 140 provides for the prosecution of current or past holders of political officers for “punishable acts” committed in the discharge of their official duties. According to the State, Article 140 provides: Those who hold political office shall be liable to trial before the Court of Justice, even after their retirement, for punishable acts committed in the discharge of their official duties. Proceedings are initiated against them by the Procurator-General after they have been indicted by the National Assembly in a manner to be laid down by law. It can be determined by law that members of the High Councils of State and other officials shall be liable to trial for punishable acts committed in the exercise of their functions before the Court. 3 29. The State explains that while the Procurator General could indict ordinary citizens ex officio, an indictment under the Act on Indictment of Political Officers could only be laid with the permission of the National Assembly of Suriname under Article 140 of the Constitution of Suriname. The State further confirms that this provision became effective on October 18, 2001, after the National Assembly passed the Act. The National Assembly subsequently indicted the petitioner on January 17, 2002 at the request of the Procurator-General. 30. The State denies that the Act was applied to the petitioner ex post facto. The State contends that the prosecution of the petitioner occurred strictly in accordance with the constitutionally mandated procedure for indicting a (former) political office-holder. The State contends that in prosecuting the petitioner, it observed the ‘legality principle’ enshrined in its Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard, Article 1 provides that “Criminal procedure only takes place in the manner provided by law”. The State thus argues that the prosecution of the Petitioner took place “in the manner provided by law”. The State acknowledges that while it is true that the punishable acts were committed before the passage of the Act, the indictment and prosecution of Alibux occurred after the Act was law. The State further contends that the Act is only a regulatory mechanism for the prosecution of ‘punishable acts’, 2 According to the State, the Penal Code dates back to 1910, while the Act on Economic Offences and the Foreign Exchange Act date back to 1986 and 1947 respectively. 3 State’s response of July 18, 2005, paragraph 26, page 10. 5