15 within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice, as set forth in the provisions of Article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.55 44. On January 3, 2003, while the criminal proceedings against Mr. Alibux were underway, the alleged victim was prohibited from leaving the country when he was at the Paramaribo airport en route to St. Maarten for a four-day trip for personal reasons.56 There is no indication that this decision was contested or challenged by any means. 45. Once the proceedings before the High Court of Justice had begun, Mr. Alibux’s attorney presented the following objections:57 i) Article 140 of the Constitution and the IPOHA were incompatible with Article 14(5) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention for establishing a proceeding limited to a single instance before the High Court of Justice; ii) the indictment of the Prosecutor General should be declared inadmissible as the IPOHA was applied retroactively contrary to Article 136 of the Constitution; iii) the Order of the High Court of Justice of December 27, 2002, through which an objection filed by the attorneys of the alleged victim was declared invalid or non-existent because, pursuant to Article 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it did not have the power to rule on the admissibility of objections filed by them; iv) the Prosecutor General provided the National Assembly with the complete criminal investigation file, in contravention of the terms of Articles 3 and 5 of the IPOHA; and v) the Prosecutor General acted pursuant to the instructions of the Speaker of the National Assembly, contrary to the provisions of Article 2 of the IPOHA and Article 145 of the Political Constitution. 46. In this regard, this judicial body issued an Interlocutory Resolution on June 12, 2003, denying all objections raised by Mr. Alibux. In its reasoning, the High Court of Justice pointed out that: a) with respect to the retroactive application of the law, punishablllty should be based on a substantive law, which is anterior to the conduct that has been punished; b) the conduct for which the defendant was charged in the summons were punishable offenses prior to their alleged commission. This conduct is also prior to the approval of the IPOHA, which does not contain “stipulations concerning the penalization of conducts, but it is an implementation act, containing a regulation on the manner of 55 Article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: “1. An objection can be filed with the Court against the notice of continued prosecution by the suspect of a crime within fourteen days, mentioned in that notice. The objection shall nullify the summons already filed by law. 2. The suspect shall be heard in the inquiry, i. e. summoned. 3. The Court, before ruling, may have an investigation instituted by the examining judge and have the documents in respect thereof submitted to him. This investigation shall be considered a preliminary inquiry and shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the second to the fifth sections of the Third Title of said Book. 4. lf the fact does not fall within the Court's jurisdiction, it shall declare itself incompetent. 5. lf the Prosecuting Officer is not entitled to accept the action, the fact to which the notice of continued prosecution related, or the suspect is not punishable, or there is insufficient indication of guilt, then he waives prosecution of the suspect. In the case, intended in Article 55 first Paragraph, of the Penal Code the order mentioned in the second paragraph of that Article may also be given. 6. In all other cases he refers the suspect in respect of a fact described in the order to which the notice of continued prosecution referred to trial.” (attachments to the report on the Merits, folio 116). 56 Cf. Official Response of the State on July 18, 2005 (attachments to the report on the Merits, folio 141 para. 108). It noted that “After the memorandum of continued prosecution was served upon the defendant, the prosecutions department heard that Petitioner was making preparations to leave the country. To prevent the person involved from trying to evade the criminal proceedings that were initiated against him, the Public Prosecutions Department, in charge of the prosecution of punishable acts in Suriname, informed him that he was not allowed to leave the country.” Official letter No. 34/07, Petition 661-03, Admissibility of March 9, 2007 (case file of proceedings before the Commission, folio 878 para. 22). 57 The Court notes that this document has no date (attachments to the final arguments of the representatives, folios 1278 to 1293).