19 Appeal. 81 The co-accused who did not appeal, as well as those who appealed inappropriately, including Mr. Neptune, benefited from the appeal under the principle of the indivisibility of the appeal. During the hearings before this court, which began on May 8, 2006, the prosecutor recommended withdrawing the charges against Mr. Neptune based on the lack of evidence and on procedural irregularities.82 Moreover, according to the State, a request for Mr. Neptune’s release on bail was filed, but the Gonaïves Court of Appeal rejected this request because he had not filed an appeal.83 57. On July 27, 2006, after the constitutional Government of President Préval had taken office in May of that year (supra para. 6), Mr. Neptune was released provisionally “on humanitarian grounds” by order of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal, under an ‘en main levée’ action (provisional release under Article 80 of the Code of Criminal Investigation), 84 on condition that he remain available to the courts for any matter relating to the charges against him.85 58. In its decision of April 13, 2007, the Gonaïves Court of Appeal considered that, since Mr. Neptune was Prime Minister of the Government when the facts for which he was charged occurred, any proceedings against him were regulated by Articles 185 to 190 of the Constitution of the Republic of Haiti, which relate to a political trial in the Senate sitting as a High Court of Justice. Hence, the Court of Appeal considered that it could only decide “purely and simply” on its competence to investigate Mr. Neptune and other former State officials, who were criminally prosecuted in this capacity and, consequently, declared itself “incompetent ratione personae” in this matter. In addition, regarding the other accused in these proceedings, it declared that the investigation was incomplete and ordered, based on the principle of the “two-tier court system” (double degrée de jurisdiction), that the investigation should be returned to the Investigation Chamber of the Court of First Instance of Saint-Marc, since most of them had not even been summoned to appear.86 59. As indicated (supra paras. 4 and 14), the decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal of April 13, 2007, is a supervening fact in the case before the Court. This decision has been 81 Cf. Statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Mario Joseph on September 20, 2007, para. 14 (evidence file, volume III, folio 472); and fact acknowledged by the State in its brief of October 3, 2007 (merits file, volume II, folios 293-295). 82 Cf. Statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Serge Henri Vieux on September 21, 2007, para. 14 (evidence file, volume III, folio 445); and statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Yvon Neptune, supra note 6, para. 8 (folio 449). 83 Fact acknowledged by the State in its brief of October 3, 2007 (merits file, volume II, folios 293 to 295). 84 Cf. Informative statement made by Mario Joseph during the public hearing held at the seat of the Court on January 30, 2008, which was not contested by the State. 85 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 49 (folio 112). 86 For these reasons […] the appeal of the accused, Jocelerme Privert, Amanus Mayette, Yvon Neptune, etc… is formally admitted under the principle of the indivisibility of the criminal appeal, accepted by the Court of Cassation of the Republic […]; [and this court] declares itself incompetent ratione personae to institute a preliminary hearing against the accused, Yvon Neptune [and four others], prosecuted in their respective capacities as Prime Minister […]; declares that the investigation into the case is incomplete; orders, under the principle of the “two-tier court system,” that this investigation be resumed by the Instruction Chamber of the Court of First Instance of Saint-Marc, so that it may question the accused […] most of whom have never been heard by the Investigation Chamber or summoned to appear for this purpose, but were sent before the criminal court sitting without a jury, the non-justiciables being excluded from this list; and decides to postpone the hearing, until a ruling has been made on the merits (evidence file, volume VI, folios 892-893)