6 129. In conclusion, the Court observes that this case took place within the framework of practical and normative impediments to a real access to justice and a general situation of absence of guarantees and ineffectiveness of the judicial institutions to deal with facts such as those of the instant case. In this context and, in particular, the climate of legal uncertainty promoted by the norms that restricted complaints against the evaluation procedure and the eventual dismissal of the alleged victims, it is clear that the latter had no certainty about the proceeding they should or could use to claim the rights they considered violated, whether this was administrative, under administrative-law, or by an action for amparo. 16. Put differently, the Court considered that both article 9 of Decree Law No. 25640 and article 27 of Resolution No. 1239-A-92-CACL contributed to a climate of absence of judicial protection and legal security, for which reason, inter alia, it determined that the State had violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure rights and to adopt domestic legal provisions, established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. * 17. The Court considers that, through his fifth and seventh questions, Fernández-Saré brings into question the manner in which the State will provide the victims with a simple, prompt and effective administrative or judicial recourse to enforce the rights they deem to have been violated. 18. It should be noted that paragraph 148 of the Judgment provided as follows: […] in this case the Court considers that a reparation consequent with the violations it has declared is to decide that the State should guarantee the injured parties the enjoyment of their violated rights and freedoms through effective access to a simple, prompt and effective recourse. To this end, it should establish, as soon as possible, an independent and impartial body with powers to decide, in a binding and final manner, whether or not the said persons were dismissed in a justified and regular manner from the Congress of the Republic, and to establish the respective legal consequences, including, if applicable, the relevant compensation based on the specific circumstances of each individual. 19. Again, it is the Court’s view that such argument does not concern the meaning and scope of the Judgment but, rather, it addresses the means through which the State will comply with said Judgment. Said argument must be declared inadmissible on the grounds that it does not pertain to a case of interpretation of Judgment under the applicable provisions and, if and to the extent relevant, it may be addressed at the stage for monitoring compliance with the Judgment. 20. It should be further noted that it was the State who was found internationally liable and, as such, it is the only party under a duty to adopt the ordered measures of reparation, irrespective of which specific domestic body or branch of government is actually in charge of implementing the Court’s orders internally.5 IV 5 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 164, 169 and 170; Case of Aloeboetoe et al. V. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 44; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz V. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 79; and Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 67. Similarly, see Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, considering clause No. 11.