[but] it could not examine all the relevant facts, particularly as regards the petitioners’ alleged absence of consent.” 197. The representatives of the alleged victims argued that the domestic judicial remedies to which the State alluded “are totally ineffective.” The representatives added that most of the alleged victims did not try to obtain the annulment of the administrative decisions before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal “because they did not consider it an effective remedy,” since the latter’s ruling could only annul the contested act, but “would not have resulted in the depositor automatically being included among those protected,” and another act of the Central Bank would have been required to achieve that. 198. For its part, the State indicated that the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention “is unfounded.” According to the State, all those whose claim was denied by the Central Bank were able to seek the annulment of the decision before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, a body with jurisdictional powers, independent of the three branches of Government, whose five members are appointed by the Legislature. It indicated that only 38 alleged victims filed this appeal for annulment. 199. The State indicated that “the [Inter-American] Commission had assessed erroneously all aspects of the jurisdictional mechanism of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal.” According to the State, the appeal for annulment before this tribunal functioned with full guarantees. In this regard, the State described “the characteristics of the appeal for annulment or for administrative protection.” According to the State, this tribunal examines all the factual and legal circumstances related to the case, and is not influenced in any way by the previous administrative procedure.” Uruguay underscored that the said Tribunal had “analyzed all the factual and legal circumstances relating to the cases, without the prior administrative procedure influencing it in any way.” The State referred to the fact that the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal had admitted the claim of a person who is not an alleged victim in the instant case, which confirmed that the judicial remedy was accessible and effective. In addition, Uruguay indicated “that the fact that the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal […] has upheld the Central Bank’s criteria – in the immense majority of the cases – does not constitute a violation of the right to judicial protection, but rather is evidence that the Central bank’s decisions were legitimate and that, consequently, the petitioners did not have grounds for their claim.” Considerations of the Court 200. 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 violate their fundamental rights.250 This effectiveness presumes that, in addition to the formal existence of the remedies, they achieve results or represent responses to the violations of rights established in the Convention, the Constitution or by law.251 In this regard, those remedies that are not viable, owing to the general situation of the country or even the specific circumstances of a case, cannot be considered effective. This may occur, for example, when their ineffectiveness has been revealed in the practice, because there are no mechanisms for executing their decisions or owing to any other situation that constitutes the denial of 250 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 29, para. 91; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra note 18, para. 127, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 18, para. 113. 251 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, supra note 207, paras. 23 and 24; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra note 18, para. 127, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 95. 77