11 34. The Inter-American Court has held that the meaning of the protection afforded by Article 25 of the Pact of San José is based on the real possibility of accessing a judicial remedy so that the competent authorities can issue a binding decision that determines whether there has been a violation of any rights that the person claims to have, and if a violation is established, that the remedy be useful in reestablishing the individual in the enjoyment of his right and providing reparation. It would be unreasonable to establish said judicial guarantee if people would be required to know in advance whether their situation would be covered by the court under the protection of a specific law. 46 It is for this reason that the Inter-American Court does not evaluate the effectiveness of the remedies filed in regard to a possible favorable decision in the interests of the alleged victim.47 35. In view of the foregoing, regardless of whether the judicial authorities declared the claim of the individual that files a remedy unfounded because it was not covered by norms that were invoked or a violation of the allegedly violated right was not found, the State is obliged to provide effective remedies that enable people to challenge those acts by the authorities that they deem to be in breach of human rights under the American Convention, the Constitution or legislation. In the Case of Castañeda, the Inter-American Court concluded that Article 25 of the Pact of San José establishes the right to judicial protection of rights, which can be violated irrespective of whether or not there has been a violation of the right claimed or that the situation on which it was based fell within the sphere of application of the right invoked.48 36. It is important to note that the Inter-American Court has established that in all domestic legal systems there are multiple remedies, but not all are applicable under all circumstances. If in a specific case the remedy is not appropriate, it is thereby evident that it cannot be exhausted.49 The foregoing, without detriment to the possibility that all available remedies within domestic law may, in certain circumstances, satisfy in a collective manner the requirements established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, even if none of them, individually, fulfill those provisions in a comprehensive manner. 50 37. The Inter-American Court has established that the remedy of amparo due to its nature is a “simple and prompt remedy designed for the protection of all of the rights recognized by the constitutions and laws of the States Parties and by the Convention.”51 Moreover, it also considered that such a remedy falls within the scope of Article 25 of the Pact of San José, and thus it has to meet several requirements, including adequacy and 45 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71. para. 89. 46 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 100. 47 Cf. Case of López Mendoza V. Venezuela. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011 Series C No. 233, para. 184. 48 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 101. 49 64. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 50 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres V. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 288. 51 Habeus Corpus in Emergency Situations(Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series to No. 8, para. 32.