-87- a) to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b) to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 211. In relation to the obligation to respect and ensure rights, Article 1(1) of the Convention provides that: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 212. Irrespective of the recognition of responsibility by the State (supra paras. 169 to 180), this Court deems it necessary to analyze several issues which have been alleged or arisen only in the proceeding before this Court in order to establish certain aspects in relation to the compliance with the judgments, and considers it necessary as well to define some general criteria regarding the right to judicial protection. 213. The Court has established that the formal existence of remedies is not enough, if they are not effective; i.e. they must provide a solution or an answer to the violation of the rights embodied in the Convention153. In this regard, the Court has pointed out that: “[…] those remedies that, owing to the general conditions of the country or even the particular circumstances of a case, are illusory cannot be considered effective. This may occur, for example, when there uselessness has been shown in practice, because the jurisdictional body lacks the necessary independence to decide impartially or because the means to execute its decisions are lacking; owing to any other situation that establishes a situation of denial of justice, as happens when there is unjustified delay in the decision.”154 and that “The safeguard of the individual in the face of the arbitrary exercise of the power of the State is the primary purpose of the international protection of human rights.”155 214. The Court has stated that Article 25(1) of the Convention contemplates the duty of the States Parties to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction an 153 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes. Preliminary Objection, supra note 3, para. 4; Case of PalamaraIribarne, supra note 25, para. 184; and Case of Acosta-Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 93. 154 Cf. Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 6, para. 192; Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction, supra note 7, para. 77; and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 116. 155 Cf. Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 16, para. 113; Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 25, para. 183; and Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 153, para. 92.