and accordingly, the State concludes that it is “incorrect to state that (the Act) was applied ex post facto” to the petitioner. 31. The State further argues that the prosecution of the petitioner is in keeping with its international obligations under the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. The State points out that it ratified this Convention on March 29, 1996, well before the Petitioner was prosecuted for what it considered acts of corruption. 2. Constitutional Court 32. The State acknowledges the absence of a functioning Constitutional Court as alleged by the petitioner. However, the State argues that Article 144 of the Suriname Constitution does not grant any power to the Court to “act as an instance of appeal in respect of judgments of another judicial body.” According to the State, “the tasks” of the Constitutional Court are limited to the following: a) to verify the purport of Acts or parts thereof against the Constitution, and against applicable agreements concluded with other states and with international organizations; b) to assess the consistency of decisions of governmental institutions with one or more of the constitutional rights mentioned in Chapter V. 33. Accordingly, the State concludes that the judgment/verdict of the High Court of Justice of Suriname is not amenable to review by the Constitutional Court. 3. Freedom of Movement 34. The State denies the petitioner’s claim that his right to freedom of movement under Article 22 of the Convention was violated. The State contends that after serving the petitioner with a ‘memorandum of prosecution’, it came to the attention of State prosecutors that the petitioner was “making preparations to leave the country”. Based on this information, the State, through its Public Prosecutions Department ordered the petitioner not to leave the country. Accordingly, the petitioner was not permitted to leave the country in January 2003, as claimed by the petitioner. The State contends that Convention recognizes limitations on freedom of movement in the interest of “public order, public morals, and to prevent crime”. In the circumstances, the State contends that it was justified in this action to prevent the petitioner from evading criminal proceedings against him. 4. Violation of Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention 35. The State denies the Petitioner’s claim that certain public statements by the President of Suriname prejudiced his right to a fair trial and impugned his dignity. The State contends that the petitioner’s claims in this respect “are against the right to free speech and freedom of the press.” For the State, if the President “committed an unlawful act” against the petitioner, the petitioner “can always submit this to the Court on a national level.”4 Further, the State contends that “the evaluation of the acceptability of activities of the President on a political podium falls outside the competence of the Surinamese judiciary, unless on the basis of the law some action can be taken against it with a judicial body.” The State also contends that an 4 Para. 110, page 43, State’s official response of July 18, 2005. 6