35 created when the conviction had already become res judicata and after the sentence had been fulfilled. For Mr. Alibux, the possibility to file an appeal in 2007 against a penalty that had already been served meant nothing more than the mere formal existence of the process of appeal because the effects of the judgment had already materialized. Pursuant to the foregoing, the Court considers that the creation of a remedy of appeal in 2007 was insufficient to cure the legal situation infringed and incapable of obtaining the result for which it was conceived. Therefore, in the present case, it was neither adequate nor effective.117 C. General conclusion 111. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that, in the present case, due to the absence of an effective judicial remedy to guarantee Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux his right to appeal his judgment of conviction, as well as the fact that the moment of the establishment of the process in 2007, the violation of the right to appeal the judgment of Mr. Alibux had already materialized, so that such remedy could not alleviate the juridical situation infringed, the State of Suriname violated Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. VII-3 JUDICIAL PROTECTION A. Arguments of the parties and Commission 112. The Commission argued that in its June 12, 2003 Order, the High Court of Justice declined to exercise jurisdiction over the constitutionality of several interlocutory objections raised by the alleged victim, including the constitutionality of the IPOHA. In this regard, the Commission stated that the absence of a sitting Constitutional Court implied the lack of a judicial mechanism to review the constitutionality of the use of the IPOHA. As such, the Commission considered that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 25 of the American Convention. 113. The Legal Representative coincided with the statements made by the Commission; he indicated that it had been necessary to resort to a Constitutional Court, which should have as one of its powers the authority to review laws and international treaties in light of the Constitution, but that this had not been possible because such judicial mechanism had not been established. Moreover, the representative added that the High Court of Justice did not hesitate to dismiss the objections raised for the sole purpose of continuing the proceedings to issue the conviction and penalty of imprisonment against Mr. Alibux. 114. For its part, the State acknowledged the importance of a sitting Constitutional Court, as was provided for in Article 144 of the Constitution. However, it argued that: i) pursuant to the amendment to the IPOHA on August 27, 2002, Mr. Alibux should have filed an appeal regarding the decision of the High Court of Justice; 2) Mr. Alibux did not indicate which fundamental right had been violated by the IPOHA; and 3) a Constitutional Court could not be considered an instance of appeal nor could it determine if the High Court of Justice applied the law in contravention to the Constitution. B. 117 244. Considerations of the Court Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, paras. 64 and 66 and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para.