is per se incompatible with it.269 Hence, having declared the violation of rights established in the Convention (supra para. 222), the general obligation of respect and guarantee contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention has also been violated. 226. Lastly, the representatives and the Commission argued the violation of Article 2 of the Convention based on three arguments; namely that: (i) no norms existed establishing clearly the grounds on which the members of the Constitutional Tribunal could be removed from office; (ii) a legal framework with appropriate remedies against the termination resolution of the National Congress did not exist, and (iii) currently, no appropriate legislation exists to guarantee judicial independence and due process (supra para. 154). 227. Regarding the first argument, this Court has already verified that, at the time of the facts, the legal framework in force on impeachment proceedings did not permit this type of proceeding to be held against the judges for the decisions they took, and that the actions of the National Congress were arbitrary and contrary to domestic law (supra paras. 204 and 224). Similarly, regarding the termination of the judges, the termination was the result of an arbitrary action of the National Congress that was not supported by domestic law (supra para. 180). Consequently, the violations of the Convention in this case did not arise from problems in the laws that existed at the time in themselves, but from their arbitrary application. Regarding the second argument, the Court considers that it has already established the relevant elements, by concluding that preventing the members of the Constitutional Tribunal from using the remedy of amparo constituted a violation of the right to judicial protection (infra paras. 228 to 238). Third, the representatives did not provide sufficient evidence to allow the Court to relate the presumed shortcomings in the current laws to the violations declared in this case; hence, the Court observes that it is not possible to make an abstract analysis of norms that are not related and that did not have any kind of impact on the violations declared in this Judgment. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Article 2 of the American Convention was not violated. 4. Judicial protection 228. The Court has indicated that “Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States Parties to guarantee, to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. The said effectiveness supposes, in addition to the formal existence of remedies, that these provide results or responses to the violations of rights established in either the Convention or the Constitution, or by law.”270 Article 25(1) of the Convention271 guarantees the existence of a simple, prompt and effective remedy before a competent judge or court. The Court recalls its consistent case law that this remedy must be appropriate and effective.272 Regarding the effectiveness of the remedy, the Court has established that, for an effective remedy to 269 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53. 270 Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011, Series C No. 228, para. 95, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 107. 271 Article 25(1) of the American Convention (Judicial Protection) establishes that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 272 91. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 63, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 69