31 105. During the proceedings before the Inter-American Court, the Inter-American Commission alleged that the absence of a sitting Constitutional Court implied the lack of a judicial mechanism to review the constitutionality of the use of the Indictment of Political Office Holders Act against the alleged victim.153 Meanwhile, the representative indicated that it had been necessary to resort to a Constitutional Court, which should have as one of its powers the authority to review laws and international treaties in light of the Constitution; however, this had not been possible because such judicial mechanism had not been established.154 In its defense, the State argued that a Constitutional Court could not be considered an instance of appeal, nor could it determine whether or not the High Court of Justice applied a law in contravention to the Constitution.155 It further affirmed that it had already furnished the instructions necessary to make the Constitutional Court an operational institution.156 106. Given its inexistence, and despite its constitutional powers, it is impossible to know under what terms the Constitutional Court of Suriname would operate or have operated. It is even difficult to firmly ascertain how duties would be divided with the High Court of Justice. This lack of legal certainty, in my opinion, has had effects on the breach of duties set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of Article 25(2) of the American Convention as it is evident that the constitutional procedural model of judicial protection provided for in the Constitution of Suriname has not been fully implemented. In other words, the powers and functions of the competent authorities who determine the rights of a person claiming such remedy have not been specifically determined —Article 25(2)(a) of the American Convention—. As a consequence of the foregoing, it has been impossible to date to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy or judicial remedies to be implemented through the Constitutional Court (Article 25(2)(b)), or rather, it has not been possible to even implement them. 107. Although this situation by itself does not necessarily affect all cases under the jurisdiction of the judiciary in Suriname, in the very specific case of Mr. Alibux, it resulted in a high degree of legal uncertainty as he was the first individual indicted and convicted based on the procedure established in the Indictment of Political Office Holders Act and Article 140 of the Constitution.157 In my opinion, the level of uncertainty does not refer to that relevant to ordinary proceedings, but rather to the impossibility to have an effective, adequate, prompt, and simple recourse that would have protected him against acts that could have allegedly violated his fundamental rights recognized by the Constitution, law of the State, or the American Convention, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the American Convention. 108. Personally, I find it peculiar that in the Interlocutory Resolution of June 12, 2003, the High Court of Justice of Suriname analyzed and answered only some of Mr. Alibux´s allegations, such as those related to the right to freedom from ex post facto laws, yet it did not answer those arguments related to the need for conformity with the Convention. More specifically, the arguments regarding the actions of the Procurator General were answered 153 Cf. Para. 112 of the Judgment. 154 Cf. Para. 113 of the Judgment. 155 Cf. Para. 114 of the Judgment. 156 Cf. Para. 149 of the Judgment. 157 Cf. Para. 50 of the Judgment.