24 The Government of the Republic of Haiti has not got a case file against Prime Minister Yvon Neptune […] and, since there is no file against him, the constitutional Government of Haiti is not trying to prosecute Prime Minister Yvon Neptune. The Government knows very well that the legal provisions to bring former Prime Minister Yvon Neptune before the High Court of Justice do not exist. The constitutional Government of the Republic of Haiti does not intend to make a mistake […]. At present, there is only one condition under which he could return to prison and that is if the Court of Cassation overrules the decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal and, thus, affirms the ruling of the Court of First Instance of Saint-Marc, [which is] improbable.102 74. However, the declarations made by the State have been contradictory. Initially, it expressed the Government’s wish to bring Mr. Neptune before the High Court of Justice within a reasonable time.103 Then, during the hearing, it was explicit in indicating that the Government does not have a case file open against Mr. Neptune, nor has it the intention of prosecuting him. However, when answering the Court’s questions at the end of the proceedings (supra para. 14), the State indicated that the charges against Mr. Neptune have been made by private individuals who have filed a complaint; that the Gonaïves Court of Appeal considered that it was not competent to hear the matter, because the charges referred to acts committed in the exercise of his functions; that if the High Court of Justice, as the constitutional court authorized to try senior officials for acts committed in the exercise of their functions, was constituted and verified the facts of which Mr. Neptune was accused, he could then be prosecuted before the ordinary criminal courts; that Neptune’s file “corresponds to the Judiciary and not to the Executive, which does not intend to intervene in the administration of justice and cannot interfere so as to grant an individual total immunity”; and that Mr. Neptune will be prosecuted by the criminal courts if the Haitian judicial authorities so decide.104 Lastly, in answer to some statements made by the representative,105 the State indicated that if the Gonaïves Court of Appeal had declared itself incompetent, because the matter did not correspond to ordinary justice, the latter could not be asked to renounce an action for which it does not have jurisdiction. In addition, it recalled that there is still no law to regulate the procedure before the High Court of Justice, that the Haitian State has no file on Mr. Neptune, and that it cannot terminate a legal action by individuals, constituted in civil party, who filed a complaint.106 75. In summary, the Court finds that Mr. Neptune’s actual juridical situation is uncertain: it has been proved that, since he was released on humanitarian grounds and not based on a judicial decision defining his responsibility for the facts of which he is accused, he can still be criminally prosecuted for these facts. In addition, although the State indicated that it was improbable, there is still a possibility that Mr. Neptune may return to prison if, once the Court of Appeal’s decision is notified, it is appealed before the Court of Cassation and the latter revokes the decision, in which case the closing order of the Court of First Instance of Saint-Marc would be confirmed. 102 Cf. Intervention by the State of Haiti during the public hearing held at the seat of the Court on January 30, 2008 (based on a translation into Spanish by the Secretariat of the Court). 103 Cf. The State’s brief of October 3, 2007 (merits file, volume II, folio 295). 104 Cf. The State’s brief of February 22, 2008 (merits file, volume II, folio 526). 105 The representative stated that, at this time, it would be difficult for the State to ensure that there will be no further investigation in relation to Mr. Neptune, because it cannot prevent the civil party exercising its right to appeal in cassation, although the State could waive the criminal prosecution. However, according to Mr. Joseph, the civil party would have the right to raise the matter before the High Court of Justice. 106 Cf. The State’s brief of March 6, 2008 (merits file, volume II, folio 539).