122. According to Article 25 of the Convention, States must provide an adequate and effective remedy against violations of the rights established in the Convention, in the Constitution and in the law. 214 In this sense, the State must ensure the existence of simple, rapid and effective remedies so that any individual subjected to criminal proceedings may challenge the competence, independence and impartiality of the judicial authorities hearing the case. 2. Analysis of the Present Case 123. The Commission observes that in the context of the four criminal cases described in the facts of the case, Mr. Romero Feris’ defense counsel filed a series of remedies challenging different aspects relating to the competence, independence and impartiality of the judicial authorities conducting criminal proceedings against him. When exercising these remedies, Mr. Romero Feris argued that these violations had a political dimension according to which those hearing his cases had been appointed in an irregular manner with the express purpose of ensuring his persecution throughout the criminal proceedings. 124. The Commission observes that the questions raised in these remedies can be summarized as follows: (i) challenge of the appointment of Instructing Magistrate No.1 due to the fact that he was placed ninth in the list of candidates for the corresponding competitive selection process; (ii) challenge to the application of the rules of jurisdiction that led to Instructing Magistrate No.1 hearing the case; (iii) challenge to the composition of Criminal Chamber No. 2 and of the Superior Court of Justice, because some of its members had been appointed temporarily by the Executive, despite the fact that the Senate was not in recess, as established by Article 142 of the Provincial Constitution; (iv) challenge to the involvement of a member of Criminal Chamber No. 2 for having close family ties with another judge participating in other cases against Mr. Romero Feris; (v) recusation against members of the Criminal Chamber No. 2 for having reviewed some steps taken during the instructing phase in the same cases; and (vi) challenge against the Superior Court of Justice, for a ruling adopted by only three of its five members, notwithstanding that the Organic Law of the Administration of Justice states that such decisions should be taken by absolute majority of all its members. 125. In general terms, the Commission notes that in order for a judicial remedy to be effective in challenging competence, independence and impartiality of courts, States must ensure that such remedies are not resolved by the same authority whose competence, independence and impartiality are subject to challenge. In the present case, the Commission observes that several of the remedies filed were heard, at least initially, by the authority that had been challenged. This fact alone could lead the Commission to conclude that those remedies were not effective. However, given that these remedies were frequently exercised in connected with other remedies that were themselves reviewed by higher courts, the Commission does not have sufficient elements to establish a violation of the American Convention for this reason alone. 126. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the IACHR make a finding on each of these points in light of the right to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial authority, taking into account the decisions of the domestic judicial authorities within the framework of the remedies filed by Mr. Romero Feris’ defense counsel. 127. Firstly, as regards the challenge to the appointment of Instructing Magistrate No.1, which counsel considered as a politically motivated appointment (as a “covered” judge) despite the fact of being placed number nine in the list of candidates of the competitive selection process for his appointment, the judicial authorities rejected that challenge on the grounds that the domestic legislation did not impose the obligation to appoint "neither the first, nor even the third candidate on the list". 128. With respect to the right to a competent authority, the Commission notes that this analysis refers to domestic legislation, and therefore it is not pertinent to analyze it since the legal obligation to 214 I/A Court H.R. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 82; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 131, and Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 78. 30