22 decision means that Mr. Neptune cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings again or that it equates absolving him of the charges of which he was accused. a.iii. Possible proceedings before the High Court of Justice 67. On this point, the Court notes the scope that the State has attempted to derive from this decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal, following which it indicated that Mr. Neptune should appear before the High Court of Justice, under the terms of the 1987 Haitian Constitution (supra paras. 4, 14 and 62). 68. In this regard, Mr. Neptune stated that he had heard that, on September 9, 2007, the President of the Republic of Haiti had said that his file would be elevated to the Senate so that the latter could proceed pursuant to the law. He considered that a proceeding before that organ would be a political trial where he would face his opponents and that, owing to the current constitutional ambiguity, it would take months or years to institute this procedure.94 69. Regarding the nature, scope and procedure of a trial before the High Court of Justice, from the information provided by the parties, in particular by the State,95 the Court finds that the following has been proven: Articles 185 to 190 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of Haiti provide for the establishment of this organ as a political procedure, designed to try high State officials accused of crimes committed in the exercise of their functions, excluding them initially from the action of ordinary justice. Hence, if the High Court of Justice has not previously tried one of the senior State officials referred to in these provisions, that person cannot be prosecuted by ordinary justice. However, according to the said constitutional norms, the appearance of such a person before the High Court of Justice does not necessarily imply that he can subsequently be prosecuted by ordinary justice. Also, this High Court has never been installed, because there is no law to implement the said constitutional norms, and Parliament and the Court of Cassation must be functioning normally in order to install it, since the Constitution establishes that the president of the 94 Cf. Statement made by Yvon Neptune during the public hearing held at the seat of the Court on January 30, 2008. 95 The State indicated that the 1987 Constitution established that senior State officials cannot be prosecuted under ordinary justice, unless they have previously been heard by the High Court of Justice; this measure was decided by the members of the constituent assembly to avoid such officials being charged and sent to prison at any moment, in a country experiencing political unrest. The State also indicated that the High Court of Justice established in the Constitution had never been installed, because that required a law implementing the constitutional norms, and that the means of setting it up had not been determined; however, the Constitution stated that it did not correspond to the Government of the Republic to do this. In addition, in order to install the High Court of Justice, Parliament and the Court of Cassation must be functioning normally, because the presidents of the National Assembly and of the Supreme Court must act de oficio as its president and vice president; but, currently, there is an acting president of the Court of Cassation, who has not been confirmed in his functions, and the means of setting up the Chamber of Deputies, which would be responsible for filing the accusation before the High Court, has not been determined. Lastly, it indicated that, even if Mr. Neptune is heard under this procedure, it will not necessarily be possible to prosecute a senior State official under ordinary justice. The Inter-American Commission does not consider the High Court of Justice to be a judicial organ; but rather a power of the Legislature, and it has no rules of procedure, other than Articles 185 to 190 of the Constitution, so that the procedure is extremely vague, as are the guarantees of individuals subjected to it; moreover, in the actual circumstances, it is not possible to install it, since the Court of Cassation has not had a president since 2004. According to the representative, the possibility of bringing Mr. Neptune before the High Court of Justice implies a threat, because there is nothing to indicate that the Government cannot continue the proceedings.