31 103. As established in the proven facts of the case, the Constitution of Suriname, in its fourth section “Constitutional Court,” Article 144, textually states that: 1. There shall be a Constitutional Court which is an independent body composed of a 2. 3. 4. President, Vice-President and three members, who - as well as the three deputy members - shall be appointed for a period of five years at the recommendation of the National Assembly. The tasks of the Constitutional Court shall be to: a. Verify the purport of Acts or parts thereof against the Constitution, and against applicable agreements concluded with other states and with international organization; b. Assess the consistency of decisions of government institutions with one or more of the constitutional rights mentioned in Chapter V. In case the Constitutional Court decides that a contradiction exists with one or more provisions of the Constitution or an agreement as referred to in paragraph 2 sub a, the Act or parts thereof, or those decisions of the government institutions shall not be considered binding. Further rules and regulations concerning the composition, the organization and procedures of the Court, as well as the legal consequences of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, shall be determined by law. (underlining added) 104. In this case, it was determined by the Inter-American Court, and there is no dispute between the parties, that a Constitutional Court had not yet been established by the date of issuance of this Judgment.152 105. During the proceedings before the Inter-American Court, the Inter-American Commission alleged that the absence of a sitting Constitutional Court implied the lack of a judicial mechanism to review the constitutionality of the use of the Indictment of Political Office Holders Act against the alleged victim.153 Meanwhile, the representative indicated that it had been necessary to resort to a Constitutional Court, which should have as one of its powers the authority to review laws and international treaties in light of the Constitution; however, this had not been possible because such judicial mechanism had not been established.154 In its defense, the State argued that a Constitutional Court could not be considered an instance of appeal, nor could it determine whether or not the High Court of Justice applied a law in contravention to the Constitution.155 It further affirmed that it had already furnished the instructions necessary to make the Constitutional Court an operational institution.156 106. Given its inexistence, and despite its constitutional powers, it is impossible to know under what terms the Constitutional Court of Suriname would operate or have operated. It 150 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 78. 151 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71. para. 89; and Case of “Five Pensioners” V. Perú. Merits. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 126. 152 Cf. Para. 51 of the Judgment. 153 Cf. Para. 112 of the Judgment. 154 Cf. Para. 113 of the Judgment. 155 Cf. Para. 114 of the Judgment. 156 Cf. Para. 149 of the Judgment.