55 Contrary to the decision of stay of proceedings of the appeal225 and the confirmation of the military forum in the case, Mrs. Rosendo Cantu imposed a new remedy of amparo [relief], opposing the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office from maintaining jurisdiction to hear about the rape committed against her.226 This remedy was partially dismissed and partially denied on the merits by the Fifth Judge of District “B” of Appeals on Criminal Matters of the Federal District, who affirmed that “if in the case the present complainant is the person offended by the crime, it is not legally possible to construct a realm of jurisdiction to hear or investigate those unlawful facts to the civil authority, given that the legislators purpose was not as such, rather only when the commission of the offense involves civilians and soldiers, or only civilians who infringe upon military law, namely, when the main perpetrator is a civilian or citizen, circumstances not evident in this case given the complainants nature.”227 Likewise, the Judgment affirmed that “due to the unfounded concepts of a violation [to the rights of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu], and given that the deficiency of the correction of deficiencies in the complaint cannot be established, it is appropriate to deny the amparo [relief].”228 166. From the aforementioned decisions, this Court concludes that Mrs. Rosendo Cantú was unable to contest the military jurisdiction’s competence to hear matters that, by their nature, should correspond to the authorities of the ordinary [non-military] jurisdiction. In this regard, the Court has indicated that States have the obligation to establish by law and ensure due application of effective remedies and guarantees of due process before the competent authorities, in order to protect all those subject to its jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights or that lead to the determination of their rights and obligations.229 Hence, the Court has established that, for the State to comply with the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention, the formal existence of remedies is not sufficient; instead they must be effective in the terms of the that precept.230 Said effectiveness means that these remedies provide results or answers to the violations of recognized rights, be it in the Convention, or in the Constitution or in the law.231 The Court has reiterated that this obligation implies that the remedy must be appropriate to combat the violation and be applied effectively by the competent authority.232 167. As indicated above (supra paras. 160), the Court emphasizes that the victim’s participation in criminal proceedings is not limited merely to redresse the damage but, above all, to make effective her rights to know the truth and to justice before the competent judicial authorities. This necessarily implies that, at the domestic level, 225 Cf. Order No. AP-I-3577 of the Attorney General for Military Justice of January 20, 2003, supra note 170, folios 550 to 587 226 Cf. Petition for relief [Amparo] presented by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú on February 11, 2003, supra note 171, folios 11947 to 12007. 227 Cf. Judgment of Fifth Judge of District “B” in Criminal Matters in the Federal District, supra note 172, folio 12433. 228 Cf. Judgment of Fifth Judge of District “B” in Criminal Matters in the Federal District, supra note 172, folio 12437. 229 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) Merits, supra note 123, para. 79; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009 Series C No. 198, para. 72, and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 295. 230 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and (8) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24; Case of Radillla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 296, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 202. 231 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and (8) American Convention on Human Rights). supra note 230, para. 23; Case of Usón Ramírez, supra note 216, para. 129, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 202. 232 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, supra note 125, para 117. Case of Radillla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 296, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 202.