treatment has not successfully met the minimum standards to be deemed comprehensive and adequate, in light of authoritative sources on the subject matter quoted in this report and used by the Inter-American bodies to interpret the obligations of the State as for the right to health of persons living with said disease. 142. This general situation is consistent with the accounts of the petitioners regarding the concrete gaps in treatment of the surviving victims in the instant case. The Commission notes that because the cases mostly involve omissions or negative facts, that is the failure to act, the victims have no available means of proving the facts to be true,121 while the State could have indeed proven that it provided comprehensive treatment to the victims, though it did not do so in the instant case, as can be surmised from the descriptions given in the proven facts section. 143. Based on all of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the State of Guatemala continued to violate the right to life and the right to humane treatment as they pertain to the right to health, as established in Articles 4.1 and 5.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument to the detriment of the surviving victims of the instant case (see supra par. 68). The violation of the right to life of the surviving victims is based on the same reasoning set forth in section 1.3.1 of the instant merits report. 2. Right to judicial protection (Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument) 144. Article 25.1 of the American Convention establishes that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 145. The Commission and the Court have reiterated that this right is one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention but of the rule of law itself in a democratic society, because everyone has the right to a simple and prompt recourse or any other recourse to a competent judge or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights, as provided by Article 25 of the American Convention.122 146. The IACHR has held that for the State to fulfill the provisions of the Article cited above, it is not sufficient that a remedy be formally recognized, but it must be truly effective.123 The Court also issued the following holding: (…) A remedy which proves illusory because of the general conditions prevailing in the country, or even in the particular circumstances of a given case, cannot be considered effective. That could be the case, for example, when practice has shown its ineffectiveness; when the Judicial Power lacks the necessary independence to render impartial decisions or the means to carry out its judgments; or in any other situation that constitutes a denial of justice, as when there is an unjustified delay in 121 See, mutatis mutandis. IA Court of HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170. Par. 73. 122 IACHR, Application to the Court, María Reverón Trujillo, Venezuela, November 9, 2007, par. 55. Also, see: IA Court of HR, Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, par. 135; Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, par. 90; and Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, par. 191. 123 IACHR, Application to the Court, María Reverón Trujillo, Venezuela, November 9, 2007, par. 56. 35