5 merits, reparations and costs, as well as to hear the testimony of Liakat Ali Alibux, convened by the President of the Court, and the expert opinion of Héctor Olásolo, offered by the Commission. In addition, the statement of witness S. Punwasi, offered by the State, was received through affidavit. The public hearing took place on February 6, 2013, during the 98th regular session of the Court, held at its headquarters.5 At the hearing, the Court received the testimony of those summoned and the final oral arguments and observations of the Commission, the representative of the alleged victim, and the State. Following the hearing, the Court requested the parties to submit certain information and documentation to facilitate adjudication of the case. 9. Final written arguments and observations. – On February 27, 2013 and March 7, 2013, the representative and the State, respectively, presented their final written arguments. Furthermore, on March 7, 2013, the Commission presented its final written observations. Meanwhile, on March 26, the State submitted its observations to the documents presented by the representative, along with its final written arguments. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS REGARDING THE LACK OF EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES 10. The State filed three preliminary objections regarding the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies for the filing of the petition before the Commission on the following basis: i) the filing of the application before the Commission prior to the issuance of a conviction; ii) the lack of an appeal of the conviction; and iii) the lack of exhaustion of remedies related to the restriction of the right to leave the country. Nevertheless, given that the three objections are related to the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court will consider them as a whole. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 11. The State argued that the alleged victim did not exhaust domestic remedies given that at the time of the submission of his petition before the Inter-American Commission on “July 20, 2003,” no final judgment had been reached in the criminal proceedings brought against him. The State also noted that through the Law of August 27, 2007, the IPOHA was amended and a possibility was established for officials or former officials who had been convicted of crimes committed in the exercise of their functions, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 140 of the Constitution of Suriname of 1987 (hereinafter “the Constitution”) to file an appeal within three months of the entry into force of the amendment. In this regard, the State indicated that Mr. Alibux had voluntarily decided to not exercise this right, such that domestic remedies had not been exhausted by the alleged victim in this case. Finally, the State argued that Mr. Alibux did not bring forth any type of action before the domestic tribunals regarding the impediment of his departure in January of 2003, such that the statement of admissibility is rendered incomprehensible, especially since the legislature of Suriname offered Mr. Alibux sufficient legal remedies with respect to said impediment. 12. The Commission stated that the assessment regarding the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention must be made in consideration of the situation prevailing at the moment of the ruling on the admissibility or inadmissibility of the 5 The following were present at the hearing: a) for the Inter-American Commission, Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Jorge H. Meza Flores; b) for the alleged victim, Irvin Madan Dewdath Kanhai and Mr. Alibux, and c) for the State of Suriname, G.R. Sewcharan and A.E. Telting.