30 102. It is not redundant to reiterate that Article 25(1) of the American Convention guarantees the existence of a simple, prompt, and effective remedy before a judge or competent tribunal,146 and that the States Parties are obligated to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25),147 remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of the due process of law (Article 8(1)),148 all within the general obligation of the States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)),149 and, in accordance with Article 25(2)(b) of the Convention, the States the States undertake to develop the possibilities of judicial remedies. 150 The inexistence of effective domestic remedies places an individual in a state of defenselessness. 151 103. As established in the proven facts of the case, the Constitution of Suriname, in its fourth section “Constitutional Court,” Article 144, textually states that: 1. 2. 3. 4. There shall be a Constitutional Court which is an independent body composed of a President, Vice-President and three members, who - as well as the three deputy members - shall be appointed for a period of five years at the recommendation of the National Assembly. The tasks of the Constitutional Court shall be to: a. Verify the purport of Acts or parts thereof against the Constitution, and against applicable agreements concluded with other states and with international organization; b. Assess the consistency of decisions of government institutions with one or more of the constitutional rights mentioned in Chapter V. In case the Constitutional Court decides that a contradiction exists with one or more provisions of the Constitution or an agreement as referred to in paragraph 2 sub a, the Act or parts thereof, or those decisions of the government institutions shall not be considered binding. Further rules and regulations concerning the composition, the organization and procedures of the Court, as well as the legal consequences of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, shall be determined by law. (underlining added) 104. In this case, it was determined by the Inter-American Court, and there is no dispute between the parties, that a Constitutional Court had not yet been established by the date of issuance of this Judgment.152 146 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63; and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No 228, para. 91. 147 Cf. Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 90; and Case of Masacres de Río Negro V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C. No. 250, para. 191. 148 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93; and Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 82. 149 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; Case of Massacres El Mozote and nearby places V. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No 252, para. 242. 150 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 78. 151 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71. para. 89; and Case of “Five Pensioners” V. Perú. Merits. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 126. 152 Cf. Para. 51 of the Judgment.