26 be prosecuted and punished for the first time for a particular crime that is established in criminal legislation is not sufficient basis to consider that the resulting penalty is not foreseeable and contrary to the principle of legality.87 Because of this, the existence of procedural obstacles cannot in itself be an impediment to the exercise of the State’s punitive power in regard to criminal behavior that is specifically defined in the law, and is thereby foreseeable. C. Conclusions 76. The Court found that at the time of commission of the crimes for which Mr. Alibux was charged, the conduct was established as a crime by Article 278 of the Penal Code, and thus said regulation complied with the principle of legality. Furthermore, in Article 140 of the Constitution the procedural regulations for prosecution were established. Meanwhile, the immediate application of IPOHA did not affect the classification nor the severity of the penalty, and thus the Court concludes that the State of Suriname did not violate, to the detriment of Mr. Alibux Ali Liakat, the right to freedom from ex post facto laws established in Article 9 of the American Convention. VII-2. RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL88 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 77. The Commission stated that Mr. Alibux’s conviction was the result of a proceeding in a sole instance by a High Court given that, in accordance with the domestic law in effect at the time of the proceedings, there was no process of appeal available to high-ranking officials. It further noted that when an unfavorable decision is issued in the first instance, the State has an obligation to provide a mechanism by which to challenge it, in compliance with the minimum guarantees of due process. Similarly, it reiterated the standards already established by the Court in regard to this issue. The Commission indicated that in the case of high-ranking officials, although the State may create special courts for their prosecution, it must allow the defendant the opportunity to appeal a conviction. 78. The Commission signaled that the State recognized that there was no recourse available by which Mr. Alibux could have appealed the conviction imposed against him by the High Court of Justice until the amendment in 2007. Although the Commission appreciated such reform, it considered that the adverse effects of the lack of judicial review under Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention at the time of the events had already occurred, thereby generating the violation of the right to appeal the judgment against Mr. Alibux. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concluded that the State violated the right enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Alibux. 79. At the public hearing, the Legal Representative noted that the judicial system lacked legal mechanisms for the appeal of the conviction handed down against Mr. Alibux. The representative emphasized the fact that “Mr. Alibux was excluded, emphatically, from the right to appeal his sentence to a higher court […] even though the Convention was signed and ratified without reservation.” During the public hearing, Mr. Alibux stated that as of the initiation of public hearings on the domestic jurisdiction, preliminary objections had been filed against the IPOHA of 2001 for violating Article 8(2)(h) of the American 87 Cf. ECHR, Case of KhodorkoVkiy and Lebedev, supra, paras. 785, 816-821, and Case of Soros V. Francia, 50425/06. Judgment of October 6, 2011, para. 58. 88 Article 8(2) […] During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: h. the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.