4 d) Notification to the State. - On October 21, 2011, the State was notified of the Merits Report and granted two months to report on its compliance with the recommendations. e) Submission to the Court. - On January 20, 2012, the Commission submitted to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court all of the facts and human rights violations that were described in the Merits Report, by virtue of the fact that “the violations of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection occurred as a result of the validity of the regulation that establishes the prosecution of high officers in a single instance, as well the lack of implementation of constitutional norms that regulate[d] constitutional review and contemplate[d] the creation of a Constitutional Court.” The Commission further noted that “the case presents a novel aspect of the law as to the scope of the rule of freedom from ex post facto laws established in Article 9 of the American Convention when it comes to provisions that are of a procedural nature, but that can have substantive effects.” The Commission appointed Commissioner Dinah Shelton and the Executive Secretary at the time, Santiago Canton, as delegates in this case, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Mario LópezGarelli, and Hilaire Sobers, as legal advisers. 3. Requests of the Inter-American Commission. – Based on the foregoing, the Commission requested the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of: a) Article 8 of the Convention; b) Article 9 of the Convention; c) Article 22 of the Convention; and d) Article 25 of the Convention, to the detriment of Liakat Ali Alibux. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 4. Notification to the State and to the alleged victim. – The State and the alleged victim were notified of the Commission’s submission of the case on March 9, 2012. 5. Brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence. – The alleged victim did not submit his brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”) before the Court. Instead, on May 2, 2012, he filed before the Inter-American Commission a statement in which he opted to adhere to the arguments formulated by the Commission. The Commission forwarded the statement to the Court on May 14, 2012. Moreover, in a separate communication on March 15, 2012, the alleged victim requested eligibility for the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “Legal Assistance Fund”); the request was deemed time-barred and denied. On August 14, 2012, the alleged victim notified the Court that he had selected Mr. Irvin Madan Dewdath Kanhai to act as his legal representative during the proceedings before this Court. 3 6. Answer brief. – On August 21 2012, the State submitted to the Court its brief containing preliminary objections and answer to the brief submitting the case (hereinafter “the answer brief”). The State appointed G.R. Sewcharan as its Principle Agent, and A.E. Telting as Deputy Agent. 7. Observations to the preliminary objections– On September 19 and 26, 2012, the alleged victim and the Inter-American Commission, respectively, presented their observations to the preliminary objections filed by the State. 8. Public hearing and additional evidence. – By Order of the President of the Court dated December 20, 2012,4 the parties were summoned to appear at a public hearing to present their final oral arguments and observations on the preliminary objections and possible 3 4 Nevertheless, the Court noted that the alleged victim signed some briefs presented before the Court. Cf. Case of Liakat Ali Alibux V. Suriname. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of December 20, 2012. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/liakat_20_12_12_ing.pdf.