1(1) of the Convention has also been violated.” 216 Article 1(1) of the American Convention, a general provision whose content applies to all treaty provisions, requires States Parties to respect and guarantee the full and free exercise of the rights and freedoms enshrined therein “without any discrimination” and considers that, regardless of its origin or the form it may take, any treatment that may be considered discriminatory in relation to the exercise of any of the rights enshrined in the Convention is per se incompatible with that instrument. 217 Thus, the declaration of the violation of rights enshrined in the Convention (supra para. 180) implies that the general obligation to respect and protect rights contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention was also violated. 184. Finally the representatives and the Commission alleged the violation of Article 2 of the Convention 218 based on two arguments, namely: i) that at the time of the events of this case no law existed establishing the grounds upon which Supreme Court justices could be removed from office, and ii) that the regulations in force at the time in Ecuador were not consistent with the principle of judicial independence and therefore situations such as the one seen in this case could be repeated. As to the first argument, this Court has already confirmed that at the time of the facts the Supreme Court itself was responsible for hearing and processing complaints presented against judges, and that the grounds and a proceeding for this purpose existed (supra para. 62 and 160); therefore, on this aspect there is no violation of Article 2 of the Convention. Secondly, the representatives did not provide sufficient evidence to link the alleged failings of the current regulations with the violations declared in this case, for which reason the Court stresses that it is not is possible to conduct an analysis in abstracto of provisions that are not related to, or did not have some impact on, the violations declared in this Judgment. Therefore, the Court concludes that Article 2 of the American Convention was not violated. 2. Judicial protection 185. The Court has stated that “Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of States Parties to guarantee, to all persons under their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. Such effectiveness implies that, in addition to the formal existence of such remedies, these must provide results or responses to violations of rights contemplated in the Convention, in the Constitution or in the laws. 219” Article 25(1) of the Convention 220 guarantees the right to a simple, prompt and effective recourse before a competent court or tribunal. The Court recalls its constant jurisprudence which requires a remedy to be adequate and effective. 221 As to the effectiveness of the 216 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 162. 217 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53. 218 Article 2 of the American Convention (Duty to adopt domestic legal effects) provides that: “Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 219 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73, and Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 345. 220 Article 25(1) of the American Convention (Judicial Protection) provides that: 1. Everyone has the right to a 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 the 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. 221 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 63, and Case Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011, Series C No. 228, para. 91. 54