32 to the effect that the Constitution did not grant it “jurisdiction for such purposes.”158 It is clear that any state institution had to possess such jurisdiction in terms of Article 25 of the Convention, if in the end, the authorities of Suriname eventually determine that the High Court or the Constitutional Court or the ordinary tribunals has jurisdiction, this is a decision that is in its power. Nevertheless, what is not permissible is the inexistence of any such body that could have taken care of these allegations. 109. This idea became germane in the Judgment of the Inter-American Court because, even though it was not determined that a violation of Article 25 of the American Convention could have occurred, in the section on reparations of the Judgment, the Court did consider it noteworthy to highlight, as the State itself recognized, the importance of the operation of such institution, the creation of which is set forth in Article 144 of the Constitution of Suriname. Such importance, determined the Inter-American Court in its Judgment, lies in the role that a court of that nature plays in the protection of constitutional rights of the citizens subject to its jurisdiction.159 This is consistent with the intent of the Inter-American Court to establish an Inter-American standard of control for conformity with the Convention so that controversies of this nature may be resolved by state authorities through effective recourses at the domestic level. 110. In my opinion, had Mr. Alibux, at any moment, had access to a simple, prompt, appropriate, and effective remedy before a judge or competent tribunal, 160 and had such remedy been substantiated in accordance with the rules of the due process of law, 161 and had, in conformance with Article 25(2)(a) and (b) of the American Convention, the possibilities of judicial remedy been developed, 162 the controversies raised in this case would have been resolved at the domestic level, and the violations of his rights been promptly repaired and amended in domestic courts. In this manner, the instant case would have never come to the attention of the Inter-American Court, since Mr. Alibux would have never been placed in a situation of defenselessness in the absence effective judicial remedies.163 2) The absence of an effective judicial remedy to hear the claims regarding conformity with the Convention, constitutionality, and legality raised by Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux 111. On another note, Mr. Alibux argued to the High Court of Justice of his country, among other things, that Article 140 of the Constitution and the Indictment of Political Office Holders Act were inconsistent with Article 14(5) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention for creating a process in a single 158 Para. 122 of the Judgment. 159 Cf. Para. 151 of the Judgment. 160 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63; and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No 228, para. 91. 161 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93, and Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 82. 162 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 78. 163 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 89; and Case of “Five Pensioners” V. Perú. Merits. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para.126.