38 for conformity with the Convention. In this sense, the Court recalls that the obligation to monitor the compliance between domestic legislation and the American Convention is delegated to all bodies of the State, including its judges and other mechanisms related to the administration of justice at all levels. C. Conclusion 125. Based on all the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State of Suriname did not autonomously violate the right to judicial protection set forth in Article 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux. VII-4 THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT124 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 126. The Commission argued that while it is true that it is the State’s prerogative whether to impose legal restrictions on the exercise of freedom of movement under certain circumstances, it also has an obligation to rely on clearly defined law when establishing the exceptional circumstances that justify the restriction to travel abroad on Mr. Alibux, which was not demonstrated. Moreover, the State also did not establish that the restriction was necessary to prevent the alleged victim from fleeing while the legal proceeding took place. Lastly, the State did not demonstrate that the restriction was imposed in a proportionate manner, that is, that the measure was the most appropriate and least restrictive means of ensuring that Mr. Alibux would not abscond during the course of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the Commission found that the State violated the right to freedom of movement of the alleged victim in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of the American Convention. 127. The Legal Representative agreed with the Commission and added in the public hearing that he was unaware that the restriction had been imposed. 128. The State argued that under Article 146125 of the Political Constitution; 3,126 134,127 and 136128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Procurator General was authorized to prevent Mr. Alibux from leaving the country in January 2003. This restriction was not established for an indefinite period of time and its purpose was to prevent the alleged victim 124 Article 22(1). Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law. 125 Article 146 Paragraph 2 of the Constitution reads as follows: "The Prosecutor General represents the Republic of Suriname in court. He is the head of the Public Prosecutions Department and is at the same time in charge of the court police. He has the powers to give the officers who are entrusted with police tasks instructions for the prevention, detection and investigation of punishable acts, if he deems that necessary in the interest of good justice” (case file of Merits, f.452). 126 Article 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads: "The Prosecutor General watches over the appropriate prosecution of criminal offences. For that purpose he gives instructions to the members of the Public Prosecutions Department" (case file of Merits, f. 452). 127 Article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads: "With the investigation of criminal offences is charged: 1. The Prosecutor General and other members of the Public Prosecutions Department; 2. The District Commissioners; 3. The police officers; 4. The extraordinary police officers, if and insofar as they have been designated to do so by the Minister of Justice and Police” (case file of Merits, f. 452). 128 Article 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads: "The Prosecutor General and other members of the Public Prosecutions Department shall give instructions to other persons charged with the investigation” (Merits, f. 453).