32 is even difficult to firmly ascertain how duties would be divided with the High Court of Justice. This lack of legal certainty, in my opinion, has had effects on the breach of duties set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of Article 25(2) of the American Convention as it is evident that the constitutional procedural model of judicial protection provided for in the Constitution of Suriname has not been fully implemented. In other words, the powers and functions of the competent authorities who determine the rights of a person claiming such remedy have not been specifically determined —Article 25(2)(a) of the American Convention—. As a consequence of the foregoing, it has been impossible to date to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy or judicial remedies to be implemented through the Constitutional Court (Article 25(2)(b)), or rather, it has not been possible to even implement them. 107. Although this situation by itself does not necessarily affect all cases under the jurisdiction of the judiciary in Suriname, in the very specific case of Mr. Alibux, it resulted in a high degree of legal uncertainty as he was the first individual indicted and convicted based on the procedure established in the Indictment of Political Office Holders Act and Article 140 of the Constitution.157 In my opinion, the level of uncertainty does not refer to that relevant to ordinary proceedings, but rather to the impossibility to have an effective, adequate, prompt, and simple recourse that would have protected him against acts that could have allegedly violated his fundamental rights recognized by the Constitution, law of the State, or the American Convention, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the American Convention. 108. Personally, I find it peculiar that in the Interlocutory Resolution of June 12, 2003, the High Court of Justice of Suriname analyzed and answered only some of Mr. Alibux´s allegations, such as those related to the right to freedom from ex post facto laws, yet it did not answer those arguments related to the need for conformity with the Convention. More specifically, the arguments regarding the actions of the Procurator General were answered to the effect that the Constitution did not grant it “jurisdiction for such purposes.” 158 It is clear that any state institution had to possess such jurisdiction in terms of Article 25 of the Convention, if in the end, the authorities of Suriname eventually determine that the High Court or the Constitutional Court or the ordinary tribunals has jurisdiction, this is a decision that is in its power. Nevertheless, what is not permissible is the inexistence of any such body that could have taken care of these allegations. 109. This idea became germane in the Judgment of the Inter-American Court because, even though it was not determined that a violation of Article 25 of the American Convention could have occurred, in the section on reparations of the Judgment, the Court did consider it noteworthy to highlight, as the State itself recognized, the importance of the operation of such institution, the creation of which is set forth in Article 144 of the Constitution of Suriname. Such importance, determined the Inter-American Court in its Judgment, lies in the role that a court of that nature plays in the protection of constitutional rights of the citizens subject to its jurisdiction.159 This is consistent with the intent of the Inter-American Court to establish an Inter-American standard of control for conformity with the Convention so that controversies of this nature may be resolved by state authorities through effective recourses at the domestic level. 157 Cf. Para. 50 of the Judgment. 158 Para. 122 of the Judgment. 159 Cf. Para. 151 of the Judgment.