71 3. A confession of guilt by the accused shall be valid only if it is made without coercion of any kind. 4. An accused person acquitted by a nonappealable judgment shall not be subjected to a new trial for the same cause. 5. Criminal proceedings shall be public, except insofar as may be necessary to protect the interests of justice. 119. Article 25 of the American Convention provides 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. 2. The States 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. 120. In similar cases, this Court has established that “[i]n order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, the Court may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings.”133 In light of the above, the domestic proceedings must be considered as a whole, including the rulings of the appelate courts, and the role of the international court is to establish whether the proceedings as a whole, as well as the way evidence was produced,134 were in accordance with international provisions. 121. This Court has established that it is not enough for the remedies to exist formally, as they must yield positive results or responses to human rights violations, for them to be deemed effective. In other words, every person must have access to simple and prompt recourse before competent courts or judges that protect their fundamental rights.135 Said guarantee “constitutes one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention, but also of the Rule of Law in a democratic society as per the Convention.”136 In addition, as the Court has also stated, “those remedies 133 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para, 188; and “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 103, para. 222. 134 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 25, para. 189; and “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 103, para. 222; cf., inter alia, Eur. Court H.R., Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, para. 34; and Eur. Court H.R., Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, para. 33. 135 Cf. “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 3, para. 126; Cantos Case, supra note 5, para. 52; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 3, para. 112; and Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 191. 136 Cf. Cantos Case, supra note 5, para. 52; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 3, para. 112; and Ivcher Bronstein Case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 135.