to be prohibited from traveling out of Suriname. The Petitioner alleges that the official did not have a letter to confirm these instructions. 23. He also complains that the duration of the criminal proceedings (from April 2001 to July 2003) constitutes an unwarranted delay and therefore violates his right to fair trial and to judicial protection. 24. In summary, the petitioner’s complaint revolves around: a) prosecution for offences which allegedly did not exist at the time that they were purportedly committed; b) the alleged lack of any judicial means of challenging the constitutionality of the legislation creating the offences (in the absence of the constitutionally prescribed Constitutional Court. c) the alleged undue delay by the State in completing the Petitioner’s trial; d) the alleged violation of his right to fair trial by reason of adverse public statements/commentary from major political figures and the media. B. The State 25. The State contends that the petition is inadmissible because: a) the petition is tantamount to a request for the Commission to exercise ‘fourth instance’ judgment on the verdict of the Suriname High Court of Justice. b) The petitioner has failed to exhaust domestic remedies prior to lodging the petition; and that his petition is accordingly premature and/or has not been lodged in accordance with the six-month rule; c) the petition is manifestly unfounded and/or fails to disclose any prima facie violations of the American Convention. 26. In respect of the first contention, the State claims that the petitioner is asking the Commission to “give a judgment on the matters relating purely to the content in respect of the criminal trial against him …such as the consideration and the judgment of the High Court of Suriname.” 1 The State acknowledges that the High Court had given interlocutory judgment on the objections raised by the petitioner in June 2003 but that the substantive judgment was not rendered until November 2003. 27. The State contends that the petitioner failed to exhaust domestic remedies, given that criminal proceedings were still pending (in the High Court of Suriname) when he lodged his petition in July 2003. These proceedings, according to the State, were not completed until November 2003. The State further contends that the petitioner only elected to pursue ‘criminal remedies’, in terms of the objections prior to and during the criminal remedies. The State claims that the petitioner invoked these remedies but in a ‘wrong manner’. The State also contends that the petitioner has civil remedies available to him that he failed to exercise. In this respect, the State 1 Official response of the State, July 18, 2005. Page 2. 4