14 Criminal Matters with the District Courts.49 On March 27, 2002 and September 20, 2002, Mr. Alibux delivered his statement before the Examining Judge, in which he reiterated his previous statements, stating that he had not committed any of the offenses of which he had been accused.50 On October 8, 2002, the Examining Judge concluded the preliminary inquiry.51 On October 29, 2002, the Prosecutor General notified Mr. Alibux that he would be prosecuted before the High Court of Justice for the crimes of forgery, fraud, and a violation of the Foreign Exchange Act.52 42. On November 11, 2002, Mr. Alibux, by and through his attorney, submitted a brief to the High Court of Justice, alleging that the decision of the Prosecutor General was illegal as the Act had been applied retroactively, and he filed an objection requesting that continued prosecution be stopped immediately. Among his arguments, he indicated that: a) the indictment was contrary to law and applied retroactively because the first letter of the Prosecutor General with the request to indict him was on August 9, 2001 to the Minister of Justice and, subsequently, to the President of the Republic. The President thereafter forwarded such letter to the National Assembly on August 15, 2001; b) the IPOHA was published in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees on October 25, 2001, and entered into force the following day; c) the Prosecutor General submitted a second or renewed request to the National Assembly to indict Mr. Alibux on January 4, 2002; d) the second or renewed request of the Prosecutor General is void and/or non-existent in virtue of the fact that the first request in 2001 was never decided upon. Therefore, the decision of the National Assembly with regards to the second or renewed request is also void and/or non-existent; e) the retroactivity is in reference to the fact that the IPOHA came into force after the first request to indict Mr. Alibux and, since a decision was never taken, the one presented subsequently should be considered non-existent; f) the Prosecutor General violated Article 3 of the above-referenced Act as he did not submit to the National Assembly a short and factual description of the offenses supposedly committed by the defendant, and instead, based the request on the complete criminal file, which contained third-party statements that the defendant was never informed of; g) the Prosecutor General, consciously or unconsciously, influenced the members of the National Assembly, who had to decide on the indictment of Mr. Alibux, as they were informed of matters of which they should not have had knowledge of prior to or during the decision-making process; and h) the National Assembly had no alternative in assessing the validity of the indictment against Mr. Alibux, which was expressly prohibited by Article 5 of the IPOHA. As a result, the National Assembly violated the law and produced gross disadvantages to the defense of Mr. Alibux, and for that reason a fair trial can never again be guaranteed.53 43. In this regard, on December 27, 2002,54 the High Court of Justice declared Mr. Alibux’s objection inadmissible on the grounds that the argument of an illegal act on the part of the Prosecutor General and the objection against the notice of continued prosecution do not fall 49 Cf. Order of the Procurator General to initiate a preliminiary inquiry on January 28, 2002 (attachments to the report on the Merits, folios 217 and 218). 50 Cf. Judgment of the High Court of Justice of November 5, 2003 (case file of attachments to the report on the Merits, folios 179 a 182). 51 288). Cf. Closing of preliminary inquiry of October 8, 2002 (case file of proceedings before the Commission, folio 52 Cf. Official letter P.G. 3915/02. Notification of further prosecution of October 29, 2002 (case file of proceedings before the Commission, folios 420 and 421). 53 Cf. Petition against the notification of further prosecution of November 11, 2002, before the High Court of Justice (case file of proceedings before the Commission, folios 290 to 294). 54 Cf. Decision of the Chamber of the High Court of Justice on the petition regarding Article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of December 27, 2002 (case file of proceedings before the Commission, folios 591 to 593).