possible human rights violations.134 This judicial protection must be available to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the country, regardless of whether or not they are nationals. The effectiveness of the remedy must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether domestic mechanisms exist that guarantee true access to justice.135 93. In Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus and their family members v. Brazil (2020), the Court declared that the guarantee of the right to take steps to discover the truth about what happened to the alleged victims and their family members, to obtain answers to the claims and requests submitted to the authorities, and to punish those responsible within a reasonable time were ways of realizing access to justice.136 94. Therefore, the remedies should not be limited to their formal existence. Judicial protection should provide results and responses to the any alleged human rights violations. On previous occasions, the Court has indicated that “[t]he analysis by the competent authority of a judicial remedy that contests the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty cannot be reduced to a mere formality; rather, it is necessary to examine the reasons cited by the plaintiff and rule expressly on them.”137 95. In this regard, the case law of the Inter-American Court establishes two State obligations in relation to the effectiveness of access to justice: the first relates to the fact that the remedy is established by law and to the real possibility of filing effective remedies before the competent authorities, and the second relates to the guarantee of the means to ensure execution of the judicial decisions or judgment for the effective protection of human rights.138 Therefore, there is no obligation to take a favorable decision, provided the factual and legal situation is decided, rectified and, if appropriate, repaired.139 96. In addition, in Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala (2018) and Zegarra Marín v. Peru (2017),140 the Court indicated that the obligation to provide the reasoning for a decision is one of the guarantees included in Article 8(1) of the Convention to ensure the right to due process. This obligation corresponds to the right of citizens to be tried for legitimate reasons, so that a decision that is not duly substantiated is an arbitrary decision.141 Cf. Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2022. Series C No. 463, para. 108; Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2022. Series C No. 449, para. 155; Case of the Former Judicial Employees v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445, para. 77. 134 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 120. 135 136 Cf. Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus and their family members v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, paras. 217-218. 137 Cf. Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objects and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2022. Series C No. 463, para. 108; Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 169. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 96. Cf. Case of Former Judicial Employees v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445, para. 79; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237; Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 19, 2021. Series C No. 429, para. 148. 138 139 Cf. Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2019. Series C No. 391, para. 147. Cf. Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017. Series C No. 331, para. 146. 140 141 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 171. In this regard: The reasoning is the exteriorization of the justification allowing a conclusion to be reached. The obligation to provide the reasons for a ruling is a guarantee related to the proper administration of justice that ensures to citizens their right to be tried for the reasons established by law, while providing credibility to judicial decisions in a democratic society. Based on the foregoing, the rulings adopted by the States’ domestic courts that may affect human rights must be reasoned; to the contrary, they would be arbitrary. The reasoning of a ruling should provide information on the facts, 24