95 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. 2. The State Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 183. This Court has previously held that the safeguard of the individual in the face of the arbitrary exercise of the power of the State is the primary purpose of the international protection of human rights.206 In this regard, the lack of effective domestic remedies leaves the person helpless. Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes, in broad terms, the obligation of States to offer to all persons subject to their jurisdiction an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights.207 184. From this perspective, it has been stated that, in order for a State to be in compliance with Article 25(1) of the Convention, such remedies must not only exist as a formality, but they must also be effective,208 which means that a person is to be afforded a real opportunity to pursue a simple and prompt recourse which, if applicable, will secure the judicial protection sought from the competent authority. The Court has repeatedly stated that the existence of these guarantees “represents one of the basic mainstays, not only of the American Convention, but also of the Rule of Law itself in a democratic society in the sense set forth in the Convention.”209 185. In previous paragraphs of this Judgment, the Court stated that the State has failed to guarantee to Mr. Palamara-Iribarne his right to be tried by competent, independent and impartial tribunals, and violated certain aspects of the right to a fair trial in the proceedings to which he was a party. Mr. Palamara-Iribarne was removed from the regular courts and thus deprived of his right to be tried by a competent, independent, impartial tribunal previously established by law (supra para. 161). As a result of this, all remedies he filed against the adverse military decisions that 206 Cf. Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 130; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 239; and Case of BaenaRicardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 78. 207 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripàn Massacre”, supra note 189, para. 195; Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 189, para. 92; and Case of Tibi, supra note 206, para. 130. 208 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 189, para. 93; Case of Tibi, supra note 206, para. 131; and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 117. 209 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 189, para. 93; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 5, para. 75; and Case of Tibi, supra note 206, para. 131.