21 Instance of St. Marc in April 2007, in the context of an application for habeas corpus that he had filed before that court in favor of Mr. Neptune’s co-accused, who had been released following this action. He also alleged that the Court of First Instance subsequently rejected a similar action, on the basis that it was not legally aware of the decision. In addition, he alleged that, subsequently, that Court of First Instance rejected a similar action, on the basis that it was not legally aware of the decision. He also alleged that this decision must necessarily be notified to Mr. Neptune and the time for eventually filing a cassation recourse allowed to start before filing an action before the High Court of Justice.92 64. Regarding the supposed final nature of the decision, Mr. Joseph stated that it was not final, but it would be if it was notified and not appealed in cassation. During the hearing, the State indicated that “once the Gonaïves Court of Appeal declared its incompetence rationae personae in this case, Mr. Neptune has no longer to answer to ordinary justice [and] even if a cassation recourse were filed […], this would not affect the status of the Prime Minister, who is now at liberty, because the civil party cannot question the punishment.” The Commission stated that, once notified, the decision could still be appealed in cassation, so that it was not yet final.93 65. As can be appreciated, on this point the position of the representative and the statement made by Mario Joseph during these proceedings are not consistent. Together with expert witness, Serge Henry Vieux, they originally agreed that the decision was “final” and some of their arguments were based on the contents of that decision. Indeed, the alleged victim’s lawyer at the domestic level, Mario Joseph, informed the Court of First Instance of St. Marc of the decision as grounds for an application for habeas corpus filed in favor of Mr. Neptune’s co-accused; an application that was declared admissible. Subsequently, Mr. Neptune’s representative alleged that it was not final and that he had not been notified of it. However, the representative, the Commission and the State agree that the decision has not been notified. 66. In short, regarding the said decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal, the Court finds that the following is proven: that Mr. Neptune benefited from the appeal filed by other coaccused; that this domestic court declared itself incompetent to hear the facts that Mr. Neptune was accused of, but did not issue a judicial decision that assessed the causes and purposes that justified depriving him of his liberty or that determined his criminal responsibility for the charges against him; that, although several months have elapsed since it was issued, the decision has not been duly notified to Mr. Neptune; that, while it is not notified, it can still be appealed in cassation, at least for some effects and, consequently, it is still not final; that, although it is not final, the decision has already had effects in relation to other co-accused of Mr. Neptune and has been cited by the representative and by the State to support their positions and arguments. In addition, it has not been proved that this 92 Subsequently, the typed text of the decision was provided by the representative and the official manuscript text by the State. 93 However, when answering certain questions raised by the Court (supra para. 14), the representative indicated that a judicial decision that has not been notified does not exist legally, so that it cannot be considered notified if one of the parties uses it or cites it during a hearing. The Commission endorsed this. The State agreed that, if a decision has not been notified, it cannot be appealed by the parties. Nevertheless, the State added that, if the decision is adopted in the presence of the parties or their lawyer, it can be appealed; that, in the instant case, although it has not been notified, the decision of the Court of Appeal is irrevocable, while the Court of Cassation has not “set it aside” and that the alleged victim cannot allege that he has no knowledge of it, since he cited it in the hearing before the Inter-American Court.