25 accordance with Article 278, in relation to Articles 46, 47 and 72 of the Penal Code,86 and sentenced to one year of imprisonment and disqualification from holding the office of cabinet minister for a period of three years (supra para. 47). 73. In regard to the Commission’s argument that the IPOHA had wider and more substantive effects, (supra para. 54), it is evident that the crime of forgery for which Mr. Alibux was charged and convicted, as well as the establishment of the corresponding penalty, were classified in Article 278 of the Penal Code of 1910, prior to the commission of the offense. Moreover, Article 140 of the Constitution established the applicable procedural provisions in the case, in the sense that political office holders would be subject to trial for punishable acts that were committed in the discharge of their duties. Moreover, this article established the way in which proceedings are initiated and that those who hold political office would be prosecuted before the High Court of Justice following indictment by the National Assembly. These regulations, particularly the constitutional provision, seek to expressly establish the responsibility of high-ranking officials for the commission of criminal acts. Mr. Liakat Alibux was a high-ranking government official during the period between September 1996 to August 2000 (supra para. 32). The Court finds that these provisions were established with sufficient notice and specification for Mr. Alibux to be fully aware of the behaviors that could entail criminal responsibility while in the discharge of their duties. Therefore, the crime for which Mr. Alibux was charged, was established by law, prior to the commission of the criminal act. 74. Furthermore, in relation to the content of the IPOHA, the Court finds that this regulation governed the preexisting procedure implemented in Article 140 of the Constitution regarding the trial of high-ranking officials. In this way, it defined the persons for whom the regulation applied (specific high-ranking officials), the power of the Procurator General to present a request before the National Assembly to assess whether prosecution should be considered in the public interest, from a political and administrative perspective (supra para. 37), and if sufficient evidence exists, provide the Procurator General with notice to initiate criminal proceedings. Therefore, in this case, being that the IPOHA governs the regulation of the procedure, the right to freedom from ex post facto laws does not apply, given that it did not affect the substantive nature of the crime that had been previously provided by law or the scope of the severity of the penalty (supra paras. 69 and 70). The applicable law was properly accessible and foreseeable as the criminal classification and the penalty were established by law in a clear, express, and prior manner, and thus there was no violation of the Convention when the law that regulated the procedure was applied immediately after its entry into force. 75. In regard to the Commission’s argument that the IPOHA “was intended to regulate a constitutional provision with the purpose of allowing, for the first time, the prosecution of such officials,” the Court notes that which was expressed by the State in regard to the prosecution of other political office holders in Suriname in 1977 and 2008, for crimes committed in the discharge of their duties (supra para. 57). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court does not have sufficient evidence to confirm the type of procedures and sanctions against high-ranking officials that have been carried out in Suriname or the law by which they were prosecuted. However, the Court considers that the fact that high-ranking officials 86 Article 278 of the Act of October 14, 1910 established the Penal Code of Suriname (G.B. 1911 No. 1) defines the crime of forgery. Article 278 (forgery): “A person who falsifies or falsely produces a written document which establishes a right, an obligation or liberates any debt, or which is intended to constitute evidence of a fact, with intent to use or have it used by a third party as real and not falsified, shall be punished for forgery with a maximum prison sentence of five years, if the use of this document could cause a disadvantage. The same penalty shall be imposed on any person who uses false or forged documents as if real and not falsified, if such use could cause a disadvantage.”