16 prosecution of the criminal offences committed by political office holders in the discharge of their official duties,” and thus, no infringement was made on the principle of legality; c) the formal obligations stipulated by Article 140 of the Constitution have been met; d) the High Court of Justice did not have constitutional jurisdiction to assess the procedure carried out by the Parliament to adopt the document authorizing the indictment of Mr. Alibux.58 47. Subsequently, on November 5, 2003, the High Court of Justice, composed of three judges,59 rendered its Judgment, in which it found Mr. Alibux guilty of one count of alleged forgery, in accordance with Article 278, in relation to Articles 72, 46 and 47 of the Penal Code; it ordered the immediate arrest of Mr. Alibux, sentencing him to one year’s imprisonment and banned him from holding office as a cabinet minister for a period of three years.60 Furthermore, the High Court stated that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the remaining charges61 for the offenses of forgery, fraud, and violation of the Foreign Exchange Act (supra para. 34). In addition, it is an undisputed fact that at the time the judgment was rendered, there was no judicial mechanim through which to appeal. 48. The petitioner served his sentence in the Santo Boma prison starting in February of 200462, and was released on August 14, 2004, by way of a Presidential Decree of November 24, 2003, granting a pardon to all convicted persons.63 49. On August 27, 2007, the IPOHA was amended so that persons indicted on the basis of Article 140 of the Constitution could be tried in the first instance by three judges of the High Court of Justice, and on appeal, by five to nine judges of the same court. Moreover, all persons convicted prior to the foregoing reform were given the right to lodge an appeal of their convictions within three months after the amendment came into force.64 Mr. Alibux did not appeal his conviction. 58 Cf. Resolution 2003 No. 2 issued by the High Court of Justice, on June 12, 2003 (attachments to the report on the Merits, folios 224 to 227). Moreover, it noted that: “ Furthermore that, since now a letter from the National Assembly, dated 21 January 2002, no. 138 is enclosed in the file of this suit at law, from which it is evident that the defendant has been indicted, the formal obligations according to the stipulation in article 140 of the Constitution has been met, and therefore, a further assessment as to whether or not the Parliament has followed the correct procedure upon the adoption of the document for the indictment, has passed over the High Court since it has no constitutional jurisdiction to assess this procedure.” 59 By way of the Notes of the Secretariat of the Court of November 12, 2013 and December 3, 2013, the State was asked to provide the statutes that regulate the organization and composition of the High Court of Justice and related documentation with the composition of the Court that heard the criminal proceeding against Mr. Alibux (case file of Merits, folios 497 and 500). 60 Cf. Judgment of the High Court of Justice 2003 No. 2 A, of November 5, 2003 (case file of proceedings before the Commission folio 382 ). 61 Cf. Judgment of the High Court of Justice 2003 No. 2 A, of November 5, 2003 (attachments to the report on the Merits, folio 209). 62 Cf. Letter from Mr. Alibux’s attorney to the Minister of Justice and Police of March 17, 2004 (attachments to the report on the Merits, folio 229), and Letter from Mr. Alibux’s attorney to the Magistrate of the 1st Cantón of May 13, 2004 (case file of proceedings before the Commission, folio 439 to 441). 63 Cf. Letter of the Ministry of Justice and Police to Mr. Alibux’s attorney of August 12, 2004, (attachments to the report on the Merits, folio 232), and Letter of Mr. Alibux’s attorney to the Ministry of Justice and Police of March 17, 2004 (attachments to the report on the Merits, folio 229). In this letter, the attorney stated: “My client has been sentenced to one-year imprisonment unconditionally. By the Presidential decree of 24 November 2003 all convicted persons were granted pardon in connection with 130 years of Hindustani immigration, 140 years [of] abolition of slavery and 150 years of Chinese settlement and such has also been processed at the Office of Public Prosecutor (Procurator-General). […] I request you to have my client made eligible for the granted pardon…”] 64 Cf. Bulletin of Acts and Decrees of August 27, Articles I and II (attachments to the report on the Merits, folios 236 and 237). “Article I of the amendment provides for the insertion of the following provisions: Article 12 a 1. “Political office holders or former political Officer holders who have been indicted for punishable acts committed in the discharge of their official duties as Intended in Art. 140 of the Constitution are in the first instance as well as for appeal brought before the High Court of Justice by the Procurator General, irrespective of where the acts were