50 173. Having established the violation of the right to personal liberty, to a fair trial and judicial protection to the detriment of Mr. Neptune, the Court finds it necessary to refer to the State’s obligation to provide him with an effective recourse that strictly respects and guarantees his right to a fair trial. 174. The Court has determined that Mr. Neptune faced and still faces a situation of juridical uncertainty. He has stated that he feels vulnerable owing to the possibility of a new imprisonment and that the State’s declaration that it will subject him to fresh proceedings constitutes a threat. Moreover, owing to the charges against him, Mr. Neptune stated during the hearing that he felt inhibited from taking part in politics in his country, even though he wished to do so: The failure to notify the decision [of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal] has also affected me. Above all, I feel vulnerable. Before appearing before this Court, I had not been out of my house for 17 months. I am afraid that anything I have said that could displease my political opponents, including the Government, could lead to my return to prison. I am also afraid that as an individual criminally accused of the most serious crime, I am vulnerable to a physical attack. The failure to notify the decision […] prevents me from taking part in political activities. As a former Prime Minister and Senator, and as an active member of a political organization, I would like to participate in public debates […] I would like to play an active role in the [Fanmi Lavalas] organization, especially for the upcoming elections.224 175. The Court also notes that, in his testimony, Mr. Neptune expressed his wish to be tried for the facts he is accused of, and also his desire “to clear his name”: “For years, I have waited for the Haitian courts to clear my name.”225 176. As previously indicated (supra para. 37), the Inter-American Court recalls that it is not a court where the criminal responsibility of the individual can be examined, so that it is not its function to determine Mr. Neptune’s innocence or guilt in relation to the facts of which he is accused at the domestic level. Nevertheless, the situation faced by Mr. Neptune, owing to the lack of an effective recourse to be heard by a competent court and because he remained unlawfully and arbitrarily detained for more than two years has been declared contrary to the Convention. In particular, no explanation has been provided about why the decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal has not been notified. Also, although it is not for this Court to determine whether, in future, the appropriate way to define Mr. Neptune’s juridical situation corresponds to a procedure before the High Court of Justice, it should be recalled that this possibility is uncertain (supra paras. 69 and 76). It should be clarified that the norms on immunity cannot be an obstacle for the State to investigate, prosecute and eventually punish those responsible for grave human rights violations. 177. Consequently, the Court orders the State to adopt the necessary judicial and any other measures, to ensure that, as soon as possible, Mr. Neptune’s juridical situation is totally defined as regards the criminal proceedings opened against him. If the State decides to submit him to further proceedings, they must be conducted in accordance with the applicable legal and constitutional procedures, satisfy the requirements of due process of law, and respect fully the guarantees of defense for the accused, in the terms of the American Convention. 224 Cf. Statement made by Yvon Neptune during the public hearing held at the seat of the Court on January 30, 2008. 225 458). Cf. Statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Yvon Neptune, supra note 6, para. 41 (folios 454-