10 law (Article 8(1)),35 all within the general obligation, responsibility of the States, to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Pact of San José to all persons under its jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).36 31. The effectiveness means that, in addition to the formal existence of remedies, these provide results or responses to the violations established in either the American Convention, the Constitution, or in the legislation.37 That is, the Inter-American Court has established that for an effective remedy to exist, it is not enough that it be established by the Constitution or in legislation or that it be formally recognized, but rather it is required that it be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and that it provide a means to remedy the violation. Those remedies that, due to the general conditions of the country or even the particular circumstances of a given case, are illusory cannot be considered effective.38 32. The Inter-American Court has also noted that, under the terms of Article 25 of the American Convention, two specific State obligations can be identified. First, establish by law and ensure proper implementation of effective remedies before the competent authorities, which protect all persons within its jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or that determine the rights and obligations thereof. Second, guarantee the means to implement the respective decisions and final judgments issued by the competent authorities,39 so that the rights that are declared or recognized are effectively protected. 33. The right established in Article 25 is closely linked to the general obligation established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, as it attributes protective functions to the domestic law of the States Parties.40 In view of the aforementioned, the State has a responsibility not only to design and adopt into law an effective remedy, but also to guarantee the proper application of that remedy by its judicial authorities. 41 The process should lead to the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial 35 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 92; and Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 82. 36 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; and Case of Massacres El Mozote and nearby places V. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No 252, para. 242. 37 Para. 116 of the Judgment. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para.191, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et. al.) V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 228. 38 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 136; and Case of García and Family V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 199. Series C No. 63, para. 142. 39 Cf. Case of de the “Street Children”(Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237. 40 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 83; and Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 141. 41 Cf. Case of de the “Street Children”(Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237; and Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. V. Paraguay.Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 141.