7 remedies that must be exhausted, and prove that those remedies were available and are adequate, appropriate, and effective.10 16. In that sense, when alleging the failure to indicate, at the proper procedural moment, the effectiveness.11 In this regard, it is not the duty ex officio the domestic remedies that have not that it is not up to the international bodies arguments.12 exhaust domestic remedies, the State must remedies that must be exhausted and their of the Court, or the Commission, to identify yet been exhausted. The Court emphasizes to remedy the imprecision in the State’s 17. With regard to the filing of the initial petition before the Commission, this Court finds that, indeed, the alleged victim sent the document on August 22, 2003, and that by that date, no final judgment had been issued in the criminal proceedings which had started against him, which was issued on November 5, 2003. On the other hand, although the initial petition was received on August 22, 2003, it was not until April 18, 2005, that the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition of the alleged victim to the State. On July 18, 2005, the State argued that the case had been submitted prior to the adoption of a final decision from the High Court of Justice.13 Lastly, the Admissibility Report was issued on March 9, 2007. 18. The Court holds that the petitioner argued that the alleged violations to the right to appeal the conviction and the rule of freedom from ex post facto law before the High Court of Justice were unfavorably resolved by the Interlocutory Verdict of June 12, 2003 (infra para. 46) prior to submitting the petition to the Commission. Consequently, in the present case, the Court finds that, due to the absence of a mechanism by which to appeal the possible conviction, the issuance of said judgment was not a prerequisite for purposes of presenting the case before the Commission. 19. With respect to the lack of exhaustion of the appeal, the Court notes that this remedy was introduced in Suriname through the August 27, 2007, amendment to the IPOHA (infra para. 49). Moreover, during the proceedings before the Commission, the State did not make reference to the introduction of this remedy, nor did it indicate the requirement that the alleged victim exhaust it. On the contrary, it was the alleged victim who indicated the existence of this remedy during the proceedings before the Commission in a brief dated January 10, 2008.14 It was not until the answer brief presented before this Court that the 10 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections, supra, paras. 88 and 91, and Case of Mémoli, supra, paras. 46 and 47. 11 47. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections, supra, para. 88, and Case of Mémoli, supra, para. 12 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 23, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (Fertilización in vitro) V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012 Series C No. 257, para. 23. 13 In this regard, it noted that: “It appears that the Petition of Liakat Ali Errol Alibux was filed on the 20th of July 2003, as is presentad in the facts. At that moment, the domestic remedies had not yet been exhausted as intended in Article 46 Paragraph 1 under a of the Convention. […]. The High Court of Justice did give an interlocutory judgment in respect of the objections raised by Petitioner during the Trial. This interlocutory judgment is not a final judgment and the Trial was still proceeding which appears also from the reasoning put forward by the parties and the judgment of the [High] Court in respect of the concept of judgment in the session of [said court] on the 12th of June 2003. […] Whether he could or could not appeal the judgment to be given is not relevant. Fact is that the domestic remedies were invoked and/or used, but they were not exhausted.” Cf. Official Response of the State to the Brief of submission of the case before the Commission of July 18, (attachment to the report on the Merits, folio 122). 14 Cf. Brief of Observations of Mr. Liakat Alibux in “response to the State of Suriname, on November 30, 2007,” of January 10 and 11, 2008 (case file of processing before the Commission, folios 800 and 806).