merely […] repeat[ed] the reasons it had given in the administrative sphere concerning the free removal of provisional judges.” Thus, according to the representatives, “[t]his case reveals that, when an examination of the dispute is inconvenient, the Venezuelan State understands that the right to effective judicial protection is limited to merely allowing access to the courts, rather than to the possibility of a decision on whether a specific decision of the public authorities is contrary to the law and, in particular, to provide integral reparation and to reestablish the legal situation violated.” 126. For its part, the State indicated that the Judicial Commission, through the appeal for reconsideration, had offered a response that guaranteed judicial protection through “a simple and prompt remedy that permitted the reparation of the juridical situation allegedly violated by the Administration.” In addition, according to the State, “the alleged victim made use of the judicial remedies” to contest the decision annulling her appointment as a temporary judge. Hence, the State underscored that “it is not a question of the inexistence of procedural means to claim the right allegedly affected, but rather [of] the absence of legal arguments for the court to grant the appeal for annulment in favor of the appellant.” Thus, the State concluded that, “the existence of procedural remedies does not imply per se that appellants must obtain a favorable result.” Lastly, the State reiterated that “the alleged victim could have exercised the remedy of constitutional review […]; however, at no point did she do this.” 5.2. Considerations of the Court 127. 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 that violate their fundamental rights.160 This effectiveness supposes that, in addition to the formal existence of the remedies, these achieve results or responses to the violations of the rights contemplated in the Convention, the Constitution or law.161 In this regard, those remedies that, owing to the general conditions of the country or even the specific circumstances of a given case, turn out to be illusory cannot be considered effective. This can be the case, for example, when their ineffectiveness has been revealed in practice, because of the absence of the means for executing their decisions or due to any other situation constituting a context of denial of justice.162 Thus, the proceeding must be designed to implement the protection of the right recognized in the judicial decision by the appropriate execution of that ruling.163 160 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra note 14, para. 91; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 34, para. 164, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 13, para. 141. 161 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. supra note 121, para. 90; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 59; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra note 158, para. 101, and see also, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 148, para. 23. 162 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 137; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. para. 213, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 69. 163 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 213, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, supra note 27, para. 69. 40