29 A) On the arguments of Mr. Alibux before the High Court of Justice of Suriname and the decision of the Inter-American Court 95. In this case, Mr. Alibux argued before the High Court of Justice of Suriname, the incompatibility of Article 140 of the Constitution of Suriname and the Indictment of Political Office Holders Act with the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention and Article 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for establishing criminal proceedings in a single instance. Given this clear statement of incompatibility with the Convention, the High Court of Suriname that heard the criminal proceedings, through an Interlocutory Resolution, responded that while such international treaties have binding effects on the State, they have no direct legal effect, since a domestic court cannot establish processes of appeal that are not recognized by the law. 96. In its Judgment, the Inter-American Court declared the violation of Article 8(2)(h) precisely because no second instance was provided. Although the foregoing was established years later in the amendment to the aforementioned Indictment of Political Office Holders Act in 2007 through the creation of a process of appeal, the violation materialized at the inability to appeal the conviction in 2003; moreover, the victim had already served his sentence prior to this amendment. The Inter-American Court held that by declaring the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, it did not deem it necessary to issue an additional ruling regarding the violation of Article 25 of the American Convention “as the consequences of the damages described in his allegations are subsumed in the considerations”143 regarding Article 8(2)(h); that is, the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection “is encompassed within the aforementioned violation of the right to appeal the judgment. It was precisely the absence of a remedy under the terms of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, which would have guaranteed the possibility of challenging the judgment of conviction, which propitiated and enabled the situations alluded to by the Commission and the representatives.”144 97. With respect to the arguments of Mr. Alibux and of the Commission before this InterAmerican Tribunal concerning the violation of the right to judicial protection due to the lack of implementation of the Constitutional Court of Suriname, as established in article 144 of the Constitution, the Court determined that "although […] it recognizes the importance of such bodies as protectors of constitutional mandates and fundamental rights, the American Convention does not impose a specific model for the regulation of issues of constitutionality and control for conformity with the Convention[.] [It also reiterated] that the obligation to monitor the compliance of domestic legislation with the American Convention is delegated to all bodies of the State, including its judges and other mechanisms related to the administration of justice at all levels.”145 B) The analysis of the effective judicial remedy from the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court and from the integrative dimension of the rights under Article 25 of the American Convention 98. As I mentioned at the beginning of this opinion, I agree with the decision adopted by the Inter-American Court. However, I consider it appropriate to comment on certain aspects related to the integrative dimension of rights (an under-developed facet in Inter-American jurisprudence) and its implications in a model of exercising control for conformity with the 143 Para. 119 of the Judgment. 144 Cf. Para. 106 of the Judgment. 145 Para. 124 of the Judgment.