20 the subject of intense discussion between the parties, principally as regards its effects in relation to Mr. Neptune: whether it was duly notified to him, and if it is a final ruling in the criminal proceedings filed against him. 60. The first references to this decision that appear in the case file are in the affidavits of Mario Joseph and the expert witness, Serge Henry Vieux, presented by the Commission on September 20 and 25, 2007, respectively (supra para. 12). In his statement, Mr. Joseph affirmed that, following Mr. Neptune’s release in July 2006, “the charges [against him] remained in force almost a year later, which meant that he was still susceptible of being imprisoned [and that] the Gonaïves Court of Appeal finally issued its decision on April 13, 2007,” after the legal time limit to issue it, and without acknowledging that there was no evidence for the charges against him. 87 The expert witness, Mr. Vieux endorsed this assessment and added that Mr. Neptune did not appeal because he did not recognize the legitimacy of that court’s jurisdiction, and that the delay in reaching a decision was another inappropriate use of the judicial system to detain him and other political prisoners, in violation of their procedural rights.88 61. In his brief with final arguments, the representative referred to this decision as one of the facts of the case, when indicating that, in violation of the procedural norms of domestic law, “finally, the Gonaïves Court of Appeal had issued the decision[, in which] it affirmed […] that it did not have competence in Mr. Neptune’s case.” In addition, he argued that the decision did not establish anything concerning the charges and that it did not clear the name of the alleged victim, because it did not refer to the lack of evidence for the accusations. 89 The representative also alleged, in relation to Article 7 of the Convention, that “the prosecution of Mr. Neptune occurred in violation of Article 186 of the 1987 Haitian Constitution […] because the ordinary courts and tribunals did not have jurisdiction over a Prime Minister who had committed a crime or misdemeanor in the exercise of his function, as the Court of Appeal acknowledged three years later.”90 62. In its abovementioned brief of October 3, 1007, the State indicated that the decision was “final” and that it implied that, in his capacity as former Prime Minister, Mr. Neptune could not be tried by ordinary justice. It then affirmed that “the constitutional Government of Haiti […] undertakes that, within a reasonable time, Mr. Neptune would appear before the High Court of Justice, as established in the 1987 Constitution.”91 63. When responding to the request for useful evidence (supra para. 12), the representative stated that the Gonaïves Court of Appeal’s decision had not been notified to the parties; consequently, under Haitian law, it was not official or final and the time period for filing cassation recourse had not initiated. However, he also stated that Mario Joseph had obtained a photocopy of the decision, which he had submitted to the Court of First 87 Cf. Statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Mario Joseph, supra note 81, paras. 15-16 (folio 423). 88 445). Cf. Statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Serge Henri Vieux, supra note 82, para. 14 (folio 89 Cf. Final written arguments presented by the representatives, supra note 65, paras. 54 and 55 (folios 280 and 281). 90 Cf. Final written arguments presented by the representatives, supra note 65, para. 71 (folio 285). 91 Cf. The State’s brief of October 3, 2007, supra note 81 (folio 295).