of the country or even the particular circumstances of a specific case, cannot be considered effective.498 This may occur, for example, when their ineffectiveness has been revealed by the practice, because the means to execute the respective decisions are lacking, or due to any other situation that constitutes a context of denial of justice.499 Thus, the purpose of the proceedings should be to implement the protection of the right recognized in the legal ruling by the appropriate execution of this ruling.500 393. The Court has indicated that two specific State obligations can be identified under Article 25 of the Convention. The first is that the State must establish by law effective remedies that protect everyone subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights, or that determine their rights and obligations, and ensure due implementation of such remedies by the competent authorities. The second is that the State must guarantee the means to execute the respective decisions and final judgments of these competent authorities, so that they provide effective protection for the rights that have been declared or recognized.501 The right established in Article 25 is closely related to the general obligation under Article 1(1) of the Convention, by attributing functions of protection to the domestic law of the States Parties.502 Consequently, the State is responsible not only for creating an effective remedy and establishing it by law, but must also ensure the due implementation of this remedy by its judicial authorities. 503 394. In this case, the Court considers, first, that the Brazilian State has a legal framework that, in principle, allows it to ensure that everyone has judicial protection by punishing the perpetration of wrongful acts and establishing reparation for harm cause to the victims when there is a possible violation of article 149 of the Brazilian Penal Code, which establishes reduction to a condition similar to that of a slave as a crime. 395. However, the Court recalls its case law that the mere existence of judicial remedies does not meet the State’s obligation under the Convention; rather, the facts must demonstrate that these remedies are appropriate and effective and that they provide a prompt and exhaustive response in keeping with their purpose, which is to determine responsibilities and to make reparation to the victims when appropriate. The Court will now analyze whether the proceedings undertaken in this case were truly appropriate and effective mechanisms. 396. Regarding the 1997 criminal proceedings, the Court underlines that the charges were filed against the gato Raimundo Alves da Rocha, the manager of Hacienda Brasil Verde, Antônio Alves Vieira, and the owner of the hacienda, João Luiz Quagliato Neto. However, only Raimundo Alves and Antônio Alves was charged with committing the crime of reduction to a condition similar to that of a slave, while João Luiz Quagliato Neto was charged with committing a less serious offense. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 7, para. 137, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 109. 498 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 58, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 109. 499 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 109. 500 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 237, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 110. 501 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 83, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 110. 502 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 237, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 110. 503 98