33 110. In my opinion, had Mr. Alibux, at any moment, had access to a simple, prompt, appropriate, and effective remedy before a judge or competent tribunal, 160 and had such remedy been substantiated in accordance with the rules of the due process of law, 161 and had, in conformance with Article 25(2)(a) and (b) of the American Convention, the possibilities of judicial remedy been developed, 162 the controversies raised in this case would have been resolved at the domestic level, and the violations of his rights been promptly repaired and amended in domestic courts. In this manner, the instant case would have never come to the attention of the Inter-American Court, since Mr. Alibux would have never been placed in a situation of defenselessness in the absence effective judicial remedies.163 2) The absence of an effective judicial remedy to hear the claims regarding conformity with the Convention, constitutionality, and legality raised by Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux 111. On another note, Mr. Alibux argued to the High Court of Justice of his country, among other things, that Article 140 of the Constitution and the Indictment of Political Office Holders Act were inconsistent with Article 14(5) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention for creating a process in a single instance before said High Court of Justice.164 In this regard, in the Judgment, the InterAmerican Court found that the alleged damages suffered by Mr. Alibux were encompassed within the aforementioned violation of the right to appeal the judgment and that it should be declared as violated. As a result, the Inter-American Court did not deem it necessary to make additional determinations with respect to the violation of the right to judicial protection set forth in Article 25 of the American Convention, as the consequences of the damages described in his allegations were subsumed in the considerations in the Judgment in relation to Article 8(2)(h),165 regarding the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court or judge. 112. As noted above, had the Inter-American Court considered the integrative dimension of rights and its implications in a model of exercising control for conformity with the Convention in the present case, it would have been able to reach different conclusions with respect to Article 25 of the American Convention. 113. First, the differences between the right set forth in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention and the right to judicial protection established in Article 25 thereof (supra, paras. 59 to 68) would have brought about the independent declaration of a violation of the latter. 160 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63; and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No 228, para. 91. 161 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93, and Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 82. 162 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 78. 163 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. 164 Cf. Para. 117 of the Judgment. 165 Cf. Para. 119 of the Judgment.