37 119. Regarding the first objection raised by the representatives of the alleged victim and resolved by the High Court of Justice, notwithstanding that each of the rights contained in the Convention has its own sphere, meaning, and scope,122 the Court considers that the alleged damages suffered by Mr. Alibux are encompassed within the aforementioned violation of the right to appeal the judgment. 123 As a result, the Court does not consider it necessary to make additional determinations with respect to the violation of the right to judicial protection set forth in Article 25 of the Convention, as the consequences of the damages described in his allegations are subsumed in the considerations in chapter VII-2 of this Judgment. 120. In relation to the issues arising from the second preliminary objection, the Court notes that the High Court of Justice ruled on the objection filed. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the IPOHA consisted of a regulatory instrument that, in this case, did not represent a violation of Article 9 of the Convention (supra para. 76). 121. Meanwhile, the three other interlocutory objections related to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice referred to: i) the invalidity of the December 27, 2002 Order of the High Court of Justice, in which a brief submitted by the attorneys of the alleged victim was ruled inadmissible, as Article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not grant it the power to determine the inadmissibility of briefs presented by the alleged victim; ii) the Prosecutor General submitted the case file of the criminal investigation in its entirety to the National Assembly, which was inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 3 and 5 of the IPOHA; and iii) the Prosecutor General acted pursuant to the instructions of the Speaker of the National Assembly, contrary to the terms established in Article 2 of the IPOHA and Article 145 of the Constitution. 122. In regard to the three formal objections detailed above, the High Court of Justice stated that, due to the fact that the request for the indictment was approved by the National Assembly, it considered it inappropriate to render additional decisions in this regard in consideration that the Constitution did not grant it jurisdiction for such purposes (supra para. 46). 123. In this sense, according to the information provided by the parties, the Court considers that the interlocutory objections that were filed (supra para. 121) consisted of questions on the proceedings that occurred before the National Assembly, and were not specifically related to any arguments regarding the constitutionality of the IPOHA. Through the Resolution of June 12, 2003, the High Court of Justice held that the Constitution did not grant it jurisdiction to review the actions performed by the National Assembly with regards to the approval process for indictments of political office holders. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that the High Court of Justice did not state that it lacked jurisdiction to hear matters of a constitutional nature, and that the questions posed were answered by the High Court of Justice, with attention to their character as preliminary objections. 124. Finally, in relation to the arguments of the representative and the Commission (supra paras. 112 and 113) on the violation of the right to judicial protection due to the absence of a Constitutional Court, although the Court recognizes the importance of such bodies as protectors of constitutional mandates and fundamental rights, the American Convention does not impose a specific model for the regulation of issues of constitutionality and control 122 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparaciones. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 171 and Case of García and Family V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para 122. 123 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva, supra, para. 102, and Case of Mohamed, supra, paras. 118 and 119.