36 procedure, regulation and scope of the domestic recourses that allow the lawfulness of a deprivation of liberty to be reviewed may vary from one State to another. Therefore, in any case lodged before the Court, it is necessary to examine whether the remedies established by law and filed by the alleged victims comply with the provisions of Article 7(6) of the Convention. 116. In the instant case, the parties have not provided information on the domestic remedies that would have allowed the lawfulness of the deprivation of Mr. Neptune’s liberty to be assessed, even though Mr. Joseph declared during the hearing that habeas corpus was the appropriate recourse.159 Neither the Commission nor the representative have alleged or proved that Mr. Neptune exercised any type of recourse in this regard. 117. The only fact that appears in the file is that, on July 9, 2004, prior to Mr. Neptune’s appearance before the investigating magistrate in charge of La Scierie case, Mr. Neptune’s lawyers filed a motion of forum non conveniens, (“based on legitimate suspicion”) objecting to all the judges, government commissioners and deputy government commissioners of the Court of First Instance of Saint-Marc. This action was filed before the Court of Cassation, with the request that the former court should cease hearing La Scierie case and that the case be referred to a second court, arguing that the influence of the local population might have an effect on the court’s independence. 160 Although this type of motion is normally decided within a week or so,161 the Court of Cassation only ruled on it six months later, on January 17, 2005, when it rejected the recusal motion on the basis of “a minor technicality, namely the failure to pay the processing fee.”162 118. The Court observes that the purpose of this recusal motion was to remove the case from the court that, up until that time, had been conducting the investigation stage of the proceedings against Mr. Neptune. As has been established, that court was incompetent. There is no evidence, however, that this recourse questioned the competence of the court in itself, or the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Neptune; thus, it is not appropriate to examine these facts under Article 7(6) of the Convention. 119. Consequently, neither the Commission nor the representative has proved that the State failed in its obligation to guarantee Mr. Neptune the right embodied in this provision. 120. The Court observes that the Commission asked the Court to declare the violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention based on the same facts.163 159 Cf. Informative statement made by Mario Joseph during the public hearing held at the seat of the Court on January 30, 2008. 160 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 32 (folio 109) para. 32; and Forum non conveniens motion, July 9, 2004 (evidence file, volume II, appendix 4, folio 258). 161 444). Cf. Statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Serge Henri Vieux, supra note 82, para. 5 (folio 162 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 32 (folio 109); and Haitian Supreme Court decision on the forum non conveniens motion, January 17, 2005 (evidence file, volume II, appendix 5, folio 260 and 261). 163 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 103 (folio 126).