38 130. This case highlights the gray area that often exists to determine the independence of these rights, especially in reference to the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court (Article 8(2)(h)) with respect to the duty to guarantee access to a judicial remedy that is effective, appropriate, prompt and simple (Article 25(1)). 131. In order to achieve the differentiation between these rights, I have tried, in the second part of this concurring opinion, to point out a new dimension of Article 25 of the American Convention, that has been under-developed so far in Inter-American case law, as is the understanding of the scope of the right of individuals to a recourse “for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention.” This understanding of the right to the guarantee of fundamental rights serves the normative force of Article 25, which has an important place within the structure of the American Convention itself. 132. This logic even has its origins in the preparatory work of the American Convention, which, pursuant to an interesting debate and a proposal by the government of Chile, it was included that judicial protection should not only refer to fundamental rights provided for within the domestic sphere, but also those embodied in the American Convention. 184 The foregoing allows us to note that, through judicial protection from this integrative perspective of the rights provided for in Article 25(1), in relation to Articles 1(1), 2, and 29(b) of the Convention, an authentic integration is forged at a normative and interpretative level on the matter of fundamental rights, allowing for a view of an integrated Inter-American System and promoting jurisprudential dialogue for the creation of regional standards on the subject that effectuate the full enjoyment thereof. 133. The dimension of the right to the guarantee of rights constitutes an integral element of both domestic fundamental rights, as well as those derived from the Convention, allowing a more extensive protection in domestic courts to individuals, so that they may effectuate their rights in a model of exercise of control for conformity with the Convention. Although it is possible to deduce that these implications are derived from the text itself of Article 25 of the American Convention, I consider that, to date, they have not been sufficiently explored by this Inter-American Tribunal. Moreover, had this been addressed and developed in the present case, it is very likely that the independent violation of Article 25 of the Convention would have been declared. 134. Pursuant to this reading of the right to judicial protection, Mr. Alibux would not have had, at any moment, access to an effective judicial remedy to protect his claims of constitutionality, legality, and conformity with the Convention, beyond the specific claim in regard to the requirement that the right to appeal the judgment enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention be respected. In this sense, the Inter-American Court would have had to declare the violation of Article 25 of the Convention, in connection to Article 1(1) and 2 of such international treaty, instead of subsuming it – as is done in the Judgment – as a consequence of the violation declared regarding the lack of a process of appeal before a higher court, which refers to the dimension of due process of law and not to the duty to guarantee the rights that Article 25 of the American Convention provides for, as 184 In this regard, Chile stated that “Article 23 [(currently Article 25) of the American Convention was] insufficient, since it is limited in that it provides that ‘all persons have the right to an effective, prompt, and simple remedy before competent domestic courts or tribunals, that protect against acts that violate fundamental rights recognized by the Constitution or legislation. [To which][this] provision of the project did not refer to the rights recognized specifically in the Convention. [Therefore, the government of Chile suggested that] it would be best to insert in this Article a provision similar to that in paragraph 3 of Article 2° of the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights […]”. Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, Costa Rica, November 7 to 22, 1969, Acts and Documents, OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2, pages. 41 and 42.