52 Judge Percy Escobar ordered the precautionary measure, did not satisfy the minimum requirements of due legal process (supra para. 115). In this respect, the Court observes that when a procedure is conducted in violation of the law, the corresponding legal consequences should also be considered illegal. Consequently, the deprivation of the use and enjoyment of Mr. Ivcher’s rights relating to his shares in the Company was inappropriate, and this Court considers that it was arbitrary, and, therefore, not in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Convention. 131. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to private property established in Article 21(1) and 21(2) of the American Convention, with regard to Baruch Ivcher Bronstein. XIII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 25 (JUDICIAL PROTECTION) The Commission’s arguments 132. With regard to Article 25 of the Convention, the Commission alleges that: a) the Court has interpreted Article 25 of the Convention in order to guarantee, inter alia, a simple, prompt and effective recourse for the protection of the fundamental rights of the person; b) the domestic recourses filed by Mr. Ivcher Bronstein to obtain reparation of his rights were ineffective. Such recourses consisted of an action for amparo against the “directorial resolution” that annulled his nationality title; a request for a precautionary measure to suspend the effects of this “directorial resolution”; a recourse against the resolution that admitted the precautionary measure that gave the administration of Channel 2 to the minority shareholders, and an action for amparo to question Articles 12 and 13 of the Regulations to Nationality Law No. 26574; and c) the violation of Article 25 of the Convention consists in the absence of a simple and prompt recourse before a competent tribunal to remedy the situations denounced. The judicial proceedings filed against Mr. Ivcher left both him and his family defenseless. The State’s arguments 133. Peru did not submit any arguments on this issue, since it did not appear before the Court in the case sub judice (supra para. 78). * * * The considerations of the Court 134. Article 25(1) of the American Convention establishes that: 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