11 ruling in the proper application of the ruling.42 Therefore, the effectiveness of judgments and judicial decisions depends on their implementation. Otherwise, the denial of the right is implied.43 This implies, in accordance with Article 25(2)(b)) of the American Convention, that States commit themselves to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy. 44 As a consequence of the aforementioned, the lack of effective domestic remedies renders a person in a state of defenseless.45 34. The Inter-American Court has held that the meaning of the protection afforded by Article 25 of the Pact of San José is based on the real possibility of accessing a judicial remedy so that the competent authorities can issue a binding decision that determines whether there has been a violation of any rights that the person claims to have, and if a violation is established, that the remedy be useful in reestablishing the individual in the enjoyment of his right and providing reparation. It would be unreasonable to establish said judicial guarantee if people would be required to know in advance whether their situation would be covered by the court under the protection of a specific law. 46 It is for this reason that the Inter-American Court does not evaluate the effectiveness of the remedies filed in regard to a possible favorable decision in the interests of the alleged victim. 47 35. In view of the foregoing, regardless of whether the judicial authorities declared the claim of the individual that files a remedy unfounded because it was not covered by norms that were invoked or a violation of the allegedly violated right was not found, the State is obliged to provide effective remedies that enable people to challenge those acts by the authorities that they deem to be in breach of human rights under the American Convention, the Constitution or legislation. In the Case of Castañeda, the Inter-American Court concluded that Article 25 of the Pact of San José establishes the right to judicial protection of rights, which can be violated irrespective of whether or not there has been a violation of the right claimed or that the situation on which it was based fell within the sphere of application of the right invoked.48 36. It is important to note that the Inter-American Court has established that in all domestic legal systems there are multiple remedies, but not all are applicable under all circumstances. If in a specific case the remedy is not appropriate, it is thereby evident that it cannot be exhausted.49 The foregoing, without detriment to the possibility that all 42 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73; and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 104. 43 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 82; and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No 228. para. 104. 44 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 78. 45 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71. para. 89. 46 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 100. 47 Cf. Case of López Mendoza V. Venezuela. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011 Series C No. 233, para. 184. 48 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 101.