2 51(1) of the Convention and 44 of its Rules of Procedure, to submit this case to the jurisdiction of the Court,2 since “the State had not responded [to its report] nor adopted its recommendations.” 2. The Commission considered that “a Court judgment in this case [the first contentious case filed before the Court against Haiti,] would not only seek to redress the violations against Mr. Neptune, […] but also has the potential to improve the situation of all detainees in Haiti suffering from similar circumstances of arbitrary arrest, prolonged pretrial detention, due process irregularities and poor prison conditions, through the implementation of the necessary and appropriate reforms to the Haitian judicial system.” The Commission requested the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4) (Right to Humane Treatment), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6) (Right to Personal Liberty), 8(1), 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) (Right to a Fair Trial), 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws) and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, all “in conjunction with” Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Yvon Neptune, alleged victim in this case. As a result of the above, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to adopt certain measures of reparation. 3. The representative of the alleged victim, Brian Concannon Jr., from the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (hereinafter “the representative”), did not submit a brief with pleadings, motions and evidence to the Court in accordance with Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure (infra para. 12). Subsequently, he stated that he endorsed the facts and points of law established by the Commission in this case and, in his final written arguments, he asked the Court to declare the State responsible for violating Articles 5(1), 5(2), 5(4), 7(4), 7(6), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1 thereof, and to order certain measures of reparation 4. The State did not submit a brief answering the application or final arguments. Then, in a brief of October 3, 2007 (infra para. 13), it presented its version of some of the facts related to the instant case and indicated that “the constitutional Government of Haiti […] undertakes that, within a reasonable time, Mr. Neptune will appear before the High Court of Justice [(Haute Cour de Justice)) (hereinafter “High Court of Justice”)], in accordance with the terms of the 1987 Constitution.” The State also referred to a fact that occurred after the application had been submitted: an April 13, 2007, decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal in the criminal proceedings against Mr. Neptune and others. The said domestic court heard an appeal filed against the decision of the Court of First Instance of St. Marc accusing for violating Mr. Neptune’s rights under Article 7(4) of the Convention to be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him, Article 7(5) of the Convention to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, and Article 7(6) of the Convention to recourse to a competent court to decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention, together with his right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, based upon the delay in bringing Mr. Neptune before a competent court or tribunal following his arrest[;…] for violating Mr. Neptune’s rights under Article 8(2)(b) of the Convention to prior notification in detail of the charges against him and Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention to adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense, as well as his right to freedom from ex post facto laws under Article 9 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, based upon deficiencies in the criminal charges ordered against him.” The Commission also concluded that Haiti “is not responsible for violating Mr. Neptune’s right under Article 8 of the Convention to be tried within a reasonable time.” Lastly, the Commission made certain recommendations to the State. Cf. Report No. 62/06, Case 12,514, Merits, Yvon Neptune, Haiti, July 20, 2006, para. 95 (evidence file, volume I, appendix 1, folio 312). 2 The Commission appointed Clare Kamau Roberts, member of the Commission, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates, and Ariel E. Dulitzky, then Deputy Executive Secretary, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, current Deputy Executive Secretary, and the lawyers Ismene Zarifis and Juan Pablo Albán Alencastro, as legal advisers.