5 massacre of the population of La Scierie (Saint-Marc) and in the arson of several houses in February 2004.” 20 Two days later, the Government of Haiti issued an order banning Mr. Neptune from leaving the country. Mr. Neptune was detained on June 27, 2004, when he turned himself into the police.21 According to the Commission, at the time of his arrest, he was not informed of the reasons for his detention, nor was he informed of his rights.22 The application also refers, inter alia, to the fact that the State did not bring Mr. Neptune promptly before a judge or other judicial official authorized by law to exercise judicial power; he was not granted recourse to a competent court to decide on the lawfulness of his arrest; his physical, mental and moral integrity was not guaranteed, nor his right to be separated from convicted criminals, given the conditions of his detention and the treatment he received. Mr. Neptune remained detained until July 27, 2006, first in the National Penitentiary of Port-au-Prince and later in the Annex to the National Penitentiary, from which he was released on humanitarian grounds.23 The criminal proceedings against him remained open. II JURISDICTION 11. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case in the terms of Article 62(3) of the American Convention, because Haiti has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 27, 1977, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 20, 1998. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT On February 5, 2007, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), following a preliminary examination of the application by the then President of the Court, and in accordance with Articles 34 and 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, notified the said application together with its attachments to the State24 and to the representative25 and indicated that, 20 Cf. Arrest warrant issued by the investigating magistrate of the Court of First Instance of St. Marc on March 25, 2004 (evidence file, Volume II, folio 254). 21 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 30 (folio 108) and statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Yvon Neptune, supra note 6, para. 30 (folio 456). 22 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 87 (folio 123), and final written arguments presented by the Commission, October 2, 2007, para. 36 (merits file, volume II, folio 307). 23 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, paras. 31, 42, 48 and 49 (folios 109, 111 and 112). 24 When the said application was notified to the State, the latter was advised that it had the right to answer the application in writing and, if applicable, to submit its observations on the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence presented by the alleged victim or his representative, within a non-extendible period of four months from its notification, pursuant to Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure. In addition, the State was asked, pursuant to Article 35(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, to appoint an Agent to represent it before the Court within 30 days and, should it consider it necessary, a Deputy Agent also. Lastly, the State was informed of the possibility of appointing an ad hoc judge, within 30 days of notification of the application, to take part in the consideration of the case. The State did not appoint agents or an ad hoc judge (merits file, volume I, folio 145). 25 When the said application was notified to the representative, he was advised of his right to submit his brief with pleadings, motions and evidence within a non-extendible period of two months from notification of the application (merits file, volume I, folio 150).