57 140. Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes the guidelines of the so-called “due process of law,” which consists in, among other aspects, the right of every person to be heard with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, for the determination of his rights.212 141. Moreover, article 25(1) of the Convention establishes, in broad terms, the obligation of every State Party to provide, to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, an effective judicial recourse against acts that violate their fundamental rights.213 In particular, this Tribunal has established that States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial recourses to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), recourses that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Art. 1(1)).214 142. Similarly, the Court has pointed out that States have the responsibility to embody in their legislation and ensure due application of effective remedies and guarantees of due process of law before the competent authorities, which protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or which lead to the determination of the latter’s rights and obligations.215 The Tribunal has also established has established that for the State to comply with that provided in Article 25 of the Convention, it is not enough that the remedies are formally admissible but rather that they be effective in the terms of such rule,216 that is to say, there must be results or answers to the violations of rights in the Convention, the Constitution or the law.217 The Court has held that said obligation implies that the remedy must be suitable to combat the violation and that its application must be made effective by competent authorities.218 143. In this respect, the Tribunal highlights that some general irregularities that would affect the mentioned judicial guarantees have been referred to.219 The 212 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 74; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra note 49, para. 79; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 123, para. 101. 213 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C N° 1, para. 91; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 180; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 164. 214 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note 213, para. 91; Case of the “Las Dos Erres" Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C N° 211, para. 104; Case of Chitay Nech et al v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 190. 215 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) v. Guatemala; supra note 29, para. 237; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 182; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 166. 216 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (art. 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; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 182; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 166. 217 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, supra note 216, para. 23; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 182; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 166. 218 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C N° 103, para. 117; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 182; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 166. 219 In their statements before the Court, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel declared that they were not committing any crime at the time of the arrest. In particular, Mr. Montiel indicated that he and his wife arrived at the home of Mr. Cabrera Garcia because they were inviting the public to take part in a