c) violating Surinamese foreign currency laws by paying a portion of the purchase price in foreign currency. 15. The Petitioner was tried in the Court of Justice of Suriname between January 2002 and November 2003. He was convicted of the crimes for which he was indicted and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. He was also banned from holding public office for a period of three years. The Petitioner states that he has already completed his prison sentence. 16. According to the Petitioner, the Act was passed in October 2001 by Suriname’s National Assembly to implement Article 140 of the 1987 Suriname Constitution. This Article prescribes that political officials may be prosecuted for 'punishable acts' committed in the discharge of their duties. 17. The Petitioner complains that the Act has been applied retroactively and therefore he has been accused of offences that did not exist at the time of their alleged commission. On this basis, the Petitioner launched multiple interlocutory objections (November 11, 2002, April 16, 2003 and June 12, 2003) to the Court of Justice (during his trial) that it lacked the legal or constitutional jurisdiction to try him. According to the Petitioner, these objections were dismissed. 18. The Petitioner contends that his right to a fair trial was unduly prejudiced by adverse public comments by the current Suriname President (at a public meeting in 2001); by members of Suriname's National Assembly; and by adverse media coverage of his indictment and court proceedings. 19. The Petitioner states in respect of this adverse publicity, that he also made multiple objections to the Court, that this prejudiced his right to a fair trial and that this publicity also violated his right to reputation and dignity. 20. According to the Petitioner, the Court of Justice dismissed all of these preliminary objections, and ultimately convicted and sentenced him for the offences for which he had been charged. 21. According to the Petitioner, Article 144 of Suriname's Constitution prescribes the creation of a Constitutional Court but this body has not yet been established. The Petitioner therefore claims that there are no further national judicial remedies to exhaust. In response to the State’s contention that he could have invoked Article 137 of the Suriname Constitution (to challenge his conviction), the Petitioner contends that Article 137 may only be invoked before the Constitutional Court, which is not yet in operation. Ultimately, the Petitioner claims that upon the dismissal of his interlocutory objections, he effectively exhausted domestic remedies as there were no other available means by which he could contest the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice to prosecute (and ultimately convict) him. 22. The Petitioner also complains that he was prohibited from traveling out of Suriname on January 3, 2003 by Suriname’s Military Police, without legal justification in violation of his right to freedom of movement. He states that during the preceding year, he had frequently traveled outside of Suriname for medical treatment and had always returned. On January 3, 2003, while he was about to board a flight to St. Maarten for a four-day trip, he was advised by an immigration official/Military Police that the Acting Procurator General had given instructions for him (the petitioner) 3