2
Pursuant to Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the Commission
encloses herewith a copy of report 101/11 prepared under Article 50 of the Convention,
together with a copy of the entire record of the proceedings before the Inter-American
Commission (Appendix I) and the annexes used in the preparation of report 101/11
(Annexes). The State of Suriname was notified of the above report on the merits by
means of a communication dated October 20, 2011 (sent on October 21, 2011), wherein
it was given two months to report on steps taken to implement the recommendations.
The State of Suriname did not furnish the report requested by the Inter-American
Commission. Accordingly, the Commission submits the instant case to the jurisdiction of
the Inter-American Court in view of the need to obtain justice for the victim, in light of the
failure to carry out the recommendations.
The Inter-American Commission submits to the jurisdiction of the Court all of the
facts and human rights violations described in the merits report 101/11 and requests that
the Court find and declare that the State of Suriname bears international responsibility
for violation of the rights to a fair trial, freedom from ex post facto laws, freedom of
movement and residence, and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8, 9, 22, and 25
of the American Convention on Human Rights, taken in conjunction with the obligations
set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty, to the detriment of Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux.
Therefore, the Commission requests that Inter-American Court order the
following reparation measures:
1. Take the measures necessary to nullify the criminal process and conviction
imposed on Mr. Alibux.
2. Grant adequate reparation to Mr. Alibux for the violations declared in the
report.
3. Take the non-repetition measures necessary so that high officers prosecuted
and convicted for acts performed in their official capacity may have access to an
effective remedy to request the review of such convictions. Also, adopt
legislative or other measures that may be necessary to guarantee an effective
mechanism of review of constitutional matters.
Besides the need to secure justice for the victim, the IACHR notes that this case
includes issues of inter-American public order.
Firstly, the case raises a new aspect of law in terms of the scope of the provision
on freedom from ex post facto laws, established in Article 9 of the American Convention
with regard to procedural rules which may have substantive effects. The case represents
an opportunity for the Court to rule on the foreseeability of criminal prosecution under the
American Convention. In addition, as noted in the report on the merits, the violations of
the right to a fair trial and judicial protection stemmed from enforcement of the rule
establishing the prosecution of senior officials in a single instance and the failure to
implement the constitutional norms governing constitutional control and providing for the
creation of a Constitutional Court. Although the first aspect was amended in 2007, a
mechanism to provide for constitutional control has still not been established. In that
sense, an Inter-American Court ruling on this case could promote access to justice in
Suriname, specifically with regard to constitutional control.
In view of the foregoing, pursuant to Article 35.1 f) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Inter-American Court the Commission would like to offer the following expert
testimony: