the courts. Rather, the State has the duty to adopt affirmative measures to guarantee that the judicial remedies it provides are “truly effective in establishing whether or not a human rights violation has occurred and providing redress.”318 Thus, the Court has declared that “the inexistence of an effective remedy for violations of the rights recognized by the Convention constitutes a violation of the Convention by the State Party in which this situation occurs.”319 262. In addition, the Court has reiterated that the right of all persons to simple and prompt recourse or any other effective remedy before a competent judge or tribunal for protection against acts that violate their fundamental rights “constitutes one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention, but also of the rule of law itself in a democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention.”320 263. This Court has also held that, for a State to comply with the provisions of the aforesaid article, it is not sufficient to ensure that the remedies formally exist, but rather they must be effective.321 Thus, in the terms of Article 25 of the Convention, it is possible to identify two specific responsibilities of the State. First, it must establish in its legislation and ensure due application of effective remedies and guarantees of due process of law before the competent authorities that protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or that determine the latter’s rights and obligations. Second, it must guarantee effective mechanisms to execute the decisions or judgments issued by said authorities, so that the declared or recognized rights are effectively protected. This is because a final judgment (res judicata) provides certainty concerning the right or dispute examined in the specific case and, therefore, one of its effects is the requirement or obligatory nature of compliance. The proceedings should lead to achieving the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling, by the proper application of that ruling. 322 Consequently, the effectiveness of the judgments and the judicial orders depends on their execution.323 Anything to the contrary would entail the denial of the right concerned.324 264. Furthermore, with regard to indigenous peoples, it is essential that the States grant effective protection that takes into account the inherent particularities of indigenous peoples, their economic and social characteristics, and their special vulnerability, and their customary law, values, practices and customs.325 B.1 Regarding the obligation to investigate 318 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 177. See also Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 of American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24. 319 Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), para. 24; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, para. 185. See also, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 179. 320 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 82, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 139. 321 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, paras. 63, 68 and 81, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 142. Also, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24. 322 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 104, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, paras. 73 and 82. 323 Cf. mutatis mutandi, Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence, para. 82, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 104. 324 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, Competence, para. 82, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 104. 325 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, reparations and costs, para. 63, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 184. 74