33 B.4 The prosecution in a single instance of Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux and the right to appeal the judgment 100. The Court reiterates that Mr. Alibux served as Minister of Finance and Minister of Natural Resources between September of 1996 and August of 2000 (supra para. 32). Furthermore, he was subjected to proceedings before the National Assembly: a preliminary investigation and subsequent prosecution between January of 2002 to November of 2003 (supra paras. 34 to 47) for the criminal offenses committed in the discharge of his duties (supra para. 34), using Article 140 of the Constitution and the IPOHA as a legal basis. The trial was conducted in a single instance by three judges of the highest court in the judicial system of Suriname, namely, the High Court of Justice, and ended in a judgment of conviction against Mr. Liakat Alibux, sentencing him to one year of imprisonment and banning him from holding office as minister for a period of three years (supra para. 47). Similarly, the Court found that at the time that Mr. Alibux was convicted, the legal system did not provide any process of appeal by which to challenge the condemnatory judgment issued against him (supra para. 49). 101. As a result of the foregoing, the Court will examine the compatibility of the criminal proceedings conducted in a single instance by three judges of the High Court of Justice against Mr. Alibux, a high-ranking public official, with the right to appeal the judgment enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. 102. The Court finds that, as Minister of the State, Mr. Alibux was subjected to a jurisdiction different from ordinary courts for purposes of his criminal proceedings due to the high-ranking public office he held. In this regard, pursuant to Article 140 of the Constitution, the criminal prosecution for the crime of forgery committed in the discharge of his duties was initiated by the Procurator General after being indicted by the National Assembly for the High Court of Justice to try him. The Court considers that the establishment of the High Court of Justice as the tribunal with jurisdiction for the prosecution of Mr. Alibux is compatible, in principle, with the American Convention. 103. However, the Court verifies that there was no appeal process against the highest body of justice that tried Mr. Alibux that could be brought in order to guarantee his right to appeal the conviction, contrary to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. In this regard, the Court considers that although it was the High Court of Justice who prosecuted and convicted Mr. Alibux, the rank of the adjudicating tribunal cannot guarantee that a judgment in a sole instance will be delivered free of errors or defects. Based on the foregoing, even where criminal proceedings in a single instance were heard by a court with jurisdiction different from the ordinary, the State should have ensured Mr. Alibux had the possibility to appeal the adverse decision113, based on the nature of the minimum guarantees of due process that such right holds. The absence of a remedy resulted in the sentence pronounced against him becoming final and, in turn, Mr. Alibux had to complete a term of imprisonment. 104. In this regard, the Court considers it pertinent to ratify the importance of the existence of a process allowing the review of a conviction, especially in criminal proceedings, where a separate group of rights may be limited, particularly the right to personal liberty of an individual; in other words, it signifies a guarantee for the individual in relation to the State.114 113 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva, supra, paras. 88 and 90, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 243. 114 Cf. Case of Mohamed, supra, para. 92, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 241.